[PASSED] Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Kyoki Chudoku]

Aozora sighed. “Didn’t we just have this debate...look, I get what it’s trying to do. But if it’s going to restrict things that massively, it’s not happening. I’m not waiting for months for some idiotic bureaucrats to finish their jobs and approve. I’m not limiting how many of the terrible people who deserve death should die. One murder deserves worse than death, and you expect me not to allow even for equilibrium?”

[The Sect Meces]

The delegate from Tarsonis after waking up in a jail cell for the 6th consecutive night, had finally decided he was going to give up drinking that morning. He had started this day with a new hopeful outlook on life, but entering the chambers and seeing the proposal before him, he rolled his eyes and cracked his flask.

"Well this is just utterly ridiculous. The GA, in a rather uncharacteristic defense of national sovereignty, voted down a resolution that would merely prevent them from executing people. Instead now, the esteemed members from the legislation mill, honestly believe that this same GA will pass a bill that establishes a thousand hoops for nations to jump through in order to allow execution?...My Lord in heaven." He says, exasperatedly taking his seat, putting his feet up on the desk and sipping from his flask. Pulling out a phone, he sends a quick text message, and in a few short moments dozens of Tarsonian aids with boxes of liquor and kegs of ale begin setting up bars in the back of the chambers. " Don't worry folks, this session is no longer BYOB, the Kingdom of Tarsonis is catering."

Leman's eyes light up at the word 'ale'.

"Get me a pint of ale could ya?"

[Arasi Luvasa]

"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.

"It is one case per a million a year. If there is a case involving thirteen individuals, then all thirteen would be executed but it would only register as one case."

[The Sect Meces]

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

"It is one case per a million a year. If there is a case involving thirteen individuals, then all thirteen would be executed but it would only register as one case."

"But what if they are all separate cases? That's still an issue."

[Arasi Luvasa]

"It is one case per a million a year. If there is a case involving thirteen individuals, then all thirteen would be executed but it would only register as one case."

"But what if they are all separate cases? That's still an issue."

"If you have that many, I think you have bigger issues that should be dealt with first. Generally speaking, I do not believe that one should have that many citizens who commit crimes for which execution is a proportional punishment in such a comparatively small population."

"Oh yes, before I forget. As I understand it, the World Assembly court will rule on whether the individual is guilty of the crime that they have been accused of. The court does not determine the appropriate punishment. I assume this would mean that should they be found innocent, they will be set free, that does not seem like something either side of the death penalty debate would be in favor of. This is merely a final check and balance to minimize the unnecessary execution of innocents."

[The Sect Meces]

The Sect Meces submits their reasons for why we are against this proposal.

1. What we have interpreted from the proposal is that it seeks to establish a ridiculous amount of red-tape around capital cases, effectively barring them from actually happening.

2. The timing of this proposal has raised many eye brows in the Ambassadorial Department. We would like to note that this proposal had shown up DURING the vote for the banning of capital punishment. Obviously it was created as a fall-back and was made quite clearly made with haste, and not much forethought.

3. The proposal is essentially a repeat of the previous one, but just made to look nicer with some 'makeup' applied to it. Now while we do not wish to undermine the intelligence of members of the WA, there are those who would not read to deeply into this proposal, while yes some would cry out about their national sovereignty (which should not be underestimated in value) and be done with it, there are those who would simply read the title and vote yes. Even those who originally vote against the previous proposal had second thoughts about this one, of course until they had a harder read.



TLDR: The Sect Meces believes this is simply a repeat of the previous controversial proposal made as a fall-back plan, that contains the illusion of a compromise, should it fail.

As of now, we so no reason for this proposal to gain support.

We urge that members of the WA have a good, long read of this proposal before coming to a conclusion.

OOC: Please take more time to draft a proposal such as this. Timing is everything and while I don't want to sound like an pretentious dip, the creation of this proposal so soon after the previous one, is in my opinion, quite inappropriate.

[Separatist Peoples]

The Sect Meces submits their reasons for why we are against this proposal.

1. What we have interpreted from the proposal is that it seeks to establish a ridiculous amount of red-tape around capital cases, effectively barring them from actually happening.

2. The timing of this proposal has raised many eye brows in the Ambassadorial Department. We would like to note that this proposal had shown up DURING the vote for the banning of capital punishment. Obviously it was created as a fall-back and was made quite clearly made with haste, and not much forethought.

3. The proposal is essentially a repeat of the previous one, but just made to look nicer with some 'makeup' applied to it. Now while we do not wish to undermine the intelligence of members of the WA, there are those who would not read to deeply into this proposal, while yes some would cry out about their national sovereignty (which should not be underestimated in value) and be done with it, there are those who would simply read the title and vote yes. Even those who originally vote against the previous proposal had second thoughts about this one, of course until they had a harder read.



TLDR: The Sect Meces believes this is simply a repeat of the previous controversial proposal made as a fall-back plan, that contains the illusion of a compromise, should it fail.

We urge that members of the WA have a good, long read of this proposal before coming to a conclusion.

OOC: Please take more time to draft a proposal such as this. Timing is everything and while I don't want to sound like an pretentious dip, the creation of this proposal so soon after the previous one, is in my opinion, quite inappropriate.

OOC: IA is a pretty experienced author. As it stands, I don't see any technical errors that drafting on the forum would have resolved. I strongly suspect that he intended everything you see in the proposal. In this case, Hanlon's Razor applies, since IA isn't stupid.

[The Sect Meces]

OOC: IA is a pretty experienced author. As it stands, I don't see any technical errors that drafting on the forum would have resolved. I strongly suspect that he intended everything you see in the proposal. In this case, Hanlon's Razor applies, since IA isn't stupid.

OOC:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Please clarify as I'm not experienced in aphorisms and may have a completely out there interpretation.

Are you saying it's malicious because he isn't stupid.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: IA is a pretty experienced author. As it stands, I don't see any technical errors that drafting on the forum would have resolved. I strongly suspect that he intended everything you see in the proposal. In this case, Hanlon's Razor applies, since IA isn't stupid.

OOC:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

"Don't assume bad intentions over neglect and misunderstanding."

Please clarify as I'm not experienced in aphorisms and may have a completely out there interpretation.

Are you saying it's malicious because he isn't stupid.

OOC: Malice is a bad word here. Intent is better, but lets stick with malice to avoid misconstruing the logic. The inverse of Hanlon's Razor is then "where stupidity is an inadequate explanation, one must assume malice."

[The Sect Meces]

OOC: Malice is a bad word here. Intent is better, but lets stick with malice to avoid misconstruing the logic. The inverse of Hanlon's Razor is then "where stupidity is an inadequate explanation, one must assume malice."

OOC: So basically, what you were originally trying to say is:

Don't assume stupidity where it may have been the intent.

Atleast that's my guess anyway.

[La Isla Nueva]

Has anyone made a "Ban on Capital Punishment 2: Electric Boogaloo" post yet?

[The Sect Meces]

Has anyone made a "Ban on Capital Punishment 2: Electric Boogaloo" post yet?

Don't believe so.

[Jebslund]

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".

It says or as a means of making it so both must be fulfilled. 'Or', in this case, means there are two categories of crimes which cannot be punished with death: crimes that are nonviolent, OR crimes that do not affect more than one person. If both conditions needed to be met to take capital punishment off the table, 'and' would have been the word used.

[Arasi Luvasa]

[*]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.

"Yes, I agree it is an Or situation. It is tricky navigating the wording, I was fooled and cannot blame other who were fooled as well. Is there a better way to word it?"

OOC: just singled out the part in question to better facilitate others doing their own reading.

[Inberdia]

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

It says or as a means of making it so both must be fulfilled. 'Or', in this case, means there are two categories of crimes which cannot be punished with death: crimes that are nonviolent, OR crimes that do not affect more than one person. If both conditions needed to be met to take capital punishment off the table, 'and' would have been the word used.

Lets look at the statement first. "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." It explicitly states "or", a conjunction to link alternatives. You'd need both to put it off the table, and even in the event that the example case for poor 5 year old Sally doesn't warrant a capital punishment under this proposal, that definitely seems fit for life in prison, and from what I have heard, prisoners don't take kindly to crimes against children. The perpetrator of this crime against poor Sally would likely be in jail for life surrounded by people who hate them.

[Wyrmaeus]

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 delegation from the Dominion of Wyrmaeus came to this debate with a list of problems, only to find that the fine ambassador from Auralia has already covered them, most especially the inability to execute for non-violent treason and the inability to execute criminals who commit horrific acts of torture or sexual abuse, so long as that criminal only harmed a single victim. It is baffling to us that anyone can read this rebuttal and still vote in favor of this resolution.

[Arasi Luvasa]

The delegation from the Dominion of Wyrmaeus came to this debate with a list of problems, only to find that the fine ambassador from Auralia has already covered them, most especially the inability to execute for non-violent treason and the inability to execute criminals who commit horrific acts of torture or sexual abuse, so long as that criminal only harmed a single victim. It is baffling to us that anyone can read this rebuttal and still vote in favor of this resolution.

"The major issue you are taking issue with is a non-issue. As discussed, one can lodge a capital case if it is just a non-violent crime or if it directly affected more than one person. It does not need to do both, reread the resolution if you need to"

OOC: you can just read the last few posts.

[Wavlind]

Wavlind will never agree to any of these proposals. The Imperial Consulate voted against the first ban in a fairly one sided vote, and to see it come back under a different name is a waist of our time! This is a thinly veiled attempt to get legislation in place, which will no doubt change into a full on ban as was its original purpose. Wavlind has several members of "The Sons of Havo" in custody and awaiting trial for terrorism and high treason, and these abhorint revisionists will not doubt be found guilty and be sentenced to death. Under these new rules, many of them will no doubt be set free to threaten our Imperial Majesty Enpress Alannah II once again. Wavlind will not allow such legislation to be forced upon us, and will do all in our power, including, if necessary, military action, to secure our Imperial realms right to execute threats to the crown and state.

Sincerely,

His Excellency General the Right Honourable the Lord King of Lenden, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Military and Air forces of the Kingdom of Wavlind, Sir Wilfred King.

[Bria Doc]

While the Democratic Republic of Bria Doc recognizes that the stated intention of this proposal is not to outlaw capital punishment, its provisions take away the individual nation's ability to use it as a deterrent. Adding another layer of international bureaucracy to a system already bogged down in appeals and technicalities makes it nearly impossible for any convictions to go through, even when they should. Before our nation instituted the death penalty, murder accounted for 8% of our nation's causes of death. Since instituting the death penalty, it has dropped to 0%, and crime in general is unheard of. It is this ambassador's fear that any change to our existing legislation will lead to a rise in crime in what is otherwise a peaceful nation

[Wyrmaeus]

The delegation from the Dominion of Wyrmaeus came to this debate with a list of problems, only to find that the fine ambassador from Auralia has already covered them, most especially the inability to execute for non-violent treason and the inability to execute criminals who commit horrific acts of torture or sexual abuse, so long as that criminal only harmed a single victim. It is baffling to us that anyone can read this rebuttal and still vote in favor of this resolution.

"The major issue you are taking issue with is a non-issue. As discussed, one can lodge a capital case if it is just a non-violent crime or if it directly affected more than one person. It does not need to do both, reread the resolution if you need to"

OOC: you can just read the last few posts.

That is one interpretation of the text, yes. It is not, however, the only interpretation available. Vague texts are more dangerous and damning than explicit text, because vague texts will be defended by moderates like you who do not see the danger of corruption in the highest ranks of government. If the World Assembly seeks to become tyrannical, we shall no longer submit to its whims.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"It is actually not a vague rule, just difficult to work through. Actually taking a close analysis of the sentence does not leave leeway for interpretation."

[Rilangua]

We should never allow ourselves to be so arrogant as to think that we are capable of passing judgement on someones life.

Furthermore, I would like to add that the title is completely illegal, it implies that Capital Punishment is acceptable, and is therefore partisan.

Does no one else think this title is reprehensible?

[Inberdia]

It looks like this could pass, considering that we are at the point that vote numbers are flattening out. However, we did only just hit day 2 of this and either side is 5-6% from losing/winning.

[Jebslund]

It says or as a means of making it so both must be fulfilled. 'Or', in this case, means there are two categories of crimes which cannot be punished with death: crimes that are nonviolent, OR crimes that do not affect more than one person. If both conditions needed to be met to take capital punishment off the table, 'and' would have been the word used.

Lets look at the statement first. "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." It explicitly states "or", a conjunction to link alternatives. You'd need both to put it off the table, and even in the event that the example case for poor 5 year old Sally doesn't warrant a capital punishment under this proposal, that definitely seems fit for life in prison, and from what I have heard, prisoners don't take kindly to crimes against children. The perpetrator of this crime against poor Sally would likely be in jail for life surrounded by people who hate them.

OOC: No, you would not need both. The "or" is not a continuation of a series, but a separation of categories. "Choose anything from lists A or B" does not mean you need to find something that is on both lists, but, rather, that you may choose from items that appear on either list. Both lists are options, and the fact that one item appears on one but not the other does not make it not an option.

How that applies to this case is that the proposal takes execution off the table for crimes that fit any one (Choose from list A, B, OR C) of the following categories: Crimes for which the person being tried in that specific case is mentally incompetent, crimes which are nonviolent, OR crimes which only directly affect one person. For what you are trying to insist is the case, the wording would be:

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

Or similar. This creates the categories ("defendant"="mentally incompetent" isTRUE) and ("crime"="nonviolent" isTRUE AND "direct victims"= <2) as the the lists of cases not eligible for the death penalty.

While the logic of that is good for creative compliance reasons, it's actually not really very good to encourage extrajudicial justice under the guise of compliance.

[Essu Beti]

“Against. Our nation only has fifteen thousand people in it. This resolution would restrict us to hearing one capital case per 67 years,” says Inan. “Which is plainly ridiculous.”