NationStates

Potted Plants United wrote:

Greater Cesnica wrote:As for the death penalty: I believe that banning it directly is a matter of critical importance;

"As long as killing sapients in a war is entirely legal, given how many die in wars compared to how many are executed, anyone not also suggesting banning all killing of sapients for militaristic reasons, is a hypocrite who doesn't believe their own words."

"Ambassador, I find your line of attack here to be quite disingenuous. I'm sure you know very well the practical difference between war and the death penalty. In case that has slipped your imagination, allow me to clarify. Killing in war is a matter of necessity; such as when your nation gets invaded for instance. Killing someone after-the-fact, long after any offenses they have committed have occurred; after they've been tried, convicted, and imprisoned? Unnecessary. There is no threat posed to an individual or society at large by keeping them alive and imprisoned. Whereas killing in self-defense is killing to mitigate an imminent threat. I would imagine this reasoning is quite apparent."

"I would greatly appreciate if member delegations would stop pretending the World Assembly has not already banned capital punishment. Your arguments against its use, in addition, taunt and demean the victims of the most heinous criminals known to my nation and countless other nations. It is precisely due to the existing ban that extrajudicial killings have since risen astronomically in Wallenburg.

"This proposal and its authorship further insult the victims of torture and prison abuse by brushing away all of the essential work the target resolution does on behalf of inmate rights, without even showing the basic decency of promoting a replacement."

Wallenburg wrote:"I would greatly appreciate if member delegations would stop pretending the World Assembly has not already banned capital punishment. Your arguments against its use, in addition, taunt and demean the victims of the most heinous criminals known to my nation and countless other nations. It is precisely due to the existing ban that extrajudicial killings have since risen astronomically in Wallenburg.

"This proposal and its authorship further insult the victims of torture and prison abuse by brushing away all of the essential work the target resolution does on behalf of inmate rights, without even showing the basic decency of promoting a replacement."

"Ambassador, I have included the replacement resolution in the draft. As for the 'ban' you refer to, I do agree that PEoI presents a de-facto ban on capital punishment. However, I don't agree that a disingenuous, byzantine hoopsfest is the right way to go around banning stuff. I support its repeal and want a straight-forward resolution on the matter."

OOC: Everyone says PEoI is a de facto ban. I remember discussing this on the WA Discord with someone (or maybe multiple people) a few months ago, and we found that PEoI is not, in fact, a de facto ban.

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: Everyone says PEoI is a de facto ban. I remember discussing this on the WA Discord with someone (or maybe multiple people) a few months ago, and we found that PEoI is not, in fact, a de facto ban.

If you can show a case where someone may be executed within the terms allowed under PEoI, I'd love to hear it.

Wallenburg wrote:

Pope Saint Peter the Apostle wrote:OOC: Everyone says PEoI is a de facto ban. I remember discussing this on the WA Discord with someone (or maybe multiple people) a few months ago, and we found that PEoI is not, in fact, a de facto ban.

If you can show a case where someone may be executed within the terms allowed under PEoI, I'd love to hear it.

OOC: My apologies, I have been very busy and distracted. I'll get to you with a detailed answer later today.

As a nation that strongly believes in rehabilitation over imprisonment, The Great Lord Fail supports any legislation that supports a shift away from excessive punishment such as excessively long prison sentences and capital punishment.

Ergo, this resolution has our support.

(OOC: I'm guessing that resolution amendments aren't a thing based on the amount of repeals with similar proposals following soon after)

The Great Lord Fail wrote:As a nation that strongly believes in rehabilitation over imprisonment, The Great Lord Fail supports any legislation that supports a shift away from excessive punishment such as excessively long prison sentences and capital punishment.

Ergo, this resolution has our support.

(OOC: I'm guessing that resolution amendments aren't a thing based on the amount of repeals with similar proposals following soon after)

OOC: That is correct, resolutions cannot be amended once passed. It would need to be repealed and then replaced (or just repealed period).

OOC: As to the above, my understanding of the "PEoI argument basically makes executions impossible", as it has been presented that is, boiles down to two lines of argumentation:

1/ "To prevent the Division from being overwhelmed by requests for review, any one jurisdiction shall submit no more than than one capital case per million inhabitants per year." - This clause supposedly puts a major limit on death sentences. This is not a good argument. It would still allow countries with the size of the US, for example, to execute 328 people every year (in reality, the federal and state governments executed 17 people in 2020).

2/ One section requires that the defence be allowed a year to review the evidence, another clause requires the execution take place within a year, effectively preventing it. But the timeline is wrong there. The defence is allowed a year to examine the evidence when the case is being prosecuted in a country's justice system. After that prosecution, the Capital Cases Division reviews the case and may certify its records. If the Division permits the death penalty, the state has a year from the moment the Division gave the green light to execute the prisoner.

Perhaps there is a convincing version of this argument, but someone would need to present it instead of just asserting it exists.

Strong support for repeal.

In the interest of transparency, I would like to bring to attention a counter-campaign Tinfect has been sending to Delegates who had approved our proposal:


I find Tinfect's allegation that our proposal was a "deceitful effort to strip away critical civil rights legislation from WA law" particularly ironic; considering that Tinfect specifically authored the target resolution in such a manner so as to prevent a future ban on capital punishment. Not to mention, the statement itself is incredibly misleading. We wish to expand civil rights law by prohibiting a state from exercising capital punishment. As for the critical protections that Tinfect is concerned about? There is a replacement draft I am working on, which can be found here. This will of course be expanded to further encompass additional protections and safeguards.

Ah yes, the 'critical civil rights legislation' of duplicating lots of provisions from Treatment of Inmates.

Furthermore, I will be sending the following telegram to Delegates that withdraw their approval for our proposal:

OOC:
Funny how it's somehow deception to write a resolution that blocks a ban with the express purpose of blocking a ban, but not deception to repeat the completely nonsensical claim that it was deceptive.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Funny how it's somehow deception to write a resolution that blocks a ban with the express purpose of blocking a ban, but not deception to repeat the completely nonsensical claim that it was deceptive.

OOC: I do not believe that most voters who supported your resolution were aware of the blocker that it represented. We can argue back-and-forth about this all day, but at the end of the day we make our intention quite clear within our repeal whereas you did not in your resolution.

Greater Cesnica wrote:OOC: I do not believe most voters who supported your resolution were quite aware of the blocker that it represented. We can argue back-and-forth about this all day, but at the end of the day we make our intention quite clear within our repeal whereas you did not in yours.

OOC:
I have never, at any point in the process, made any attempt to hide the purpose of International Criminal Protocol. It has always, very publicly, and foundationally, been a blocker. I made as much clear in the drafting thread, both in the original post, and several times throughout it. In conversations elsewhere, I have discussed exactly that purpose. Ask fucking damn near anyone in TNP's WA staff who was active at the time. Ask damn near anyone in the GA who was active at the time. I will not be held responsible for people who didn't read the goddamn resolution. The blocker is cleanly divested from the other provisions such that it is easily identifiable; at multiple points in the draft are non-ban regulations on capital punishment. Fuck's sake, the goddamn preamble contains a reference to a ban that was being drafted at around the same time it was originally posted.

You people have jumped at every goddamn opportunity for character assassination and lies. It's goddamn tiring, and it's sure as hell unbecoming of an author here.
I don't give a goddamn what you, Tinhampton or Peter draft next. Don't expect my vote.

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Funny how it's somehow deception to write a resolution that blocks a ban with the express purpose of blocking a ban, but not deception to repeat the completely nonsensical claim that it was deceptive.

I mean, we all knew that ICP was written by saying 'I want to block bans on the death penalty' and afterwards finding stuff to throw in to hide that blocker, but it's good to get textual confirmation from the author.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I mean, we all knew that ICP was written by saying 'I want to block bans on the death penalty' and afterwards finding stuff to throw in to hide that blocker, but it's good to get textual confirmation from the author.

OOC:
Can you not jump in for one fucking second IA? This shit coming from the genius behind PEoI? Keep your goddamn projection to yourself.

Tinfect wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I mean, we all knew that ICP was written by saying 'I want to block bans on the death penalty' and afterwards finding stuff to throw in to hide that blocker, but it's good to get textual confirmation from the author.

OOC:
Can you not jump in for one fucking second IA? This shit coming from the genius behind PEoI? Keep your goddamn projection to yourself.

I would suggest taking a break. Seriously. Calm down.

Tinfect wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:I mean, we all knew that ICP was written by saying 'I want to block bans on the death penalty' and afterwards finding stuff to throw in to hide that blocker, but it's good to get textual confirmation from the author.

OOC:
Can you not jump in for one fucking second IA? This shit coming from the genius behind PEoI? Keep your goddamn projection to yourself.

There isn't thread ownership in the GA; and definitely not thread ownership over another person's thread. Just because you have militant pro-death penalty views does not give you a heckler's veto over what I can choose to post. P Innocents is clear on its restrictions and there is no deception involved. It is a compromise which establishes the right to use the death penalty under specific regulations. Just because you feel those regulations are overly onerous does not make it deception. The conclusory allegation of deception given in the counter-campaign is very similar to the one given here. There is no proof of the deception or explanation of how the deception was made, just claims that it happened.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There isn't thread ownership in the GA; and definitely not thread ownership over another person's thread. Just because you have militant pro-death penalty views does not give you a heckler's veto over what I can choose to post. P Innocents is clear on its restrictions and there is no deception involved. It is a compromise which establishes the right to use the death penalty under specific regulations. Just because you feel those regulations are overly onerous does not make it deception. The conclusory allegation of deception given in the counter-campaign is very similar to the one given here. There is no proof of the deception or explanation of how the deception was made, just claims that it happened.

OOC:
There it is again, fucking character assassination and dense nonsense. Stop with your self-superior shit for one goddamn second.

Tinfect wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There isn't thread ownership in the GA; and definitely not thread ownership over another person's thread. Just because you have militant pro-death penalty views does not give you a heckler's veto over what I can choose to post. P Innocents is clear on its restrictions and there is no deception involved. It is a compromise which establishes the right to use the death penalty under specific regulations. Just because you feel those regulations are overly onerous does not make it deception. The conclusory allegation of deception given in the counter-campaign is very similar to the one given here. There is no proof of the deception or explanation of how the deception was made, just claims that it happened.

OOC:
There it is again, fucking character assassination and dense nonsense. Stop with your self-superior shit for one goddamn second.

I see no character assassination in this. If I was in your place and IA had said this to me I wouldn't have interpreted it as such. Again, I urge you to take a break.

Tinfect wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:There isn't thread ownership in the GA; and definitely not thread ownership over another person's thread. Just because you have militant pro-death penalty views does not give you a heckler's veto over what I can choose to post. P Innocents is clear on its restrictions and there is no deception involved. It is a compromise which establishes the right to use the death penalty under specific regulations. Just because you feel those regulations are overly onerous does not make it deception. The conclusory allegation of deception given in the counter-campaign is very similar to the one given here. There is no proof of the deception or explanation of how the deception was made, just claims that it happened.

OOC:
There it is again, fucking character assassination and dense nonsense. Stop with your self-superior shit for one goddamn second.

If you want to have an actual discussion about 'deception' and 'character assassination', you will have to show people – external readers, rather than me, – how I am assassinating your character and how I have been deceptive. You haven't done so. It is not 'self-superior shit' to point this out.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Tinfect wrote:
OOC:
There it is again, fucking character assassination and dense nonsense. Stop with your self-superior shit for one goddamn second.

If you want to have an actual discussion about 'deception' and 'character assassination', you will have to show people – external readers, rather than me, – how I am assassinating your character and how I have been deceptive. You haven't done so. It is not 'self-superior shit' to point this out.

Well they found it pertinent to tell me to go fuck myself instead of backing up their claims of 'character assassination'. Also, nice 10000th post.

I think the replacement should had been ready to go before this was submitted.