NationStates

Tinfect - watch your tone, as you're skirting close to getting a warning for flamebait.

“Regardless of my support for the arguments presented, this repeal would allow a full death-penalty ban to take place. Since it is also written legibly, that alone is sufficient to give it my support.”

OOC: Wait a minute.

Appalled that this resolution stands in the way of preventing the execution of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit, an atrocity that will continue to occur so as long as this resolution remains in force,

There's literally a resolution on the books called "Preventing the Execution of Innocents." Between that and there being nothing in the target that stops nations from running all kinds of appeals processes and the like, does anyone else see the potential Honest Mistake in this clause?

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Wait a minute.

Appalled that this resolution stands in the way of preventing the execution of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit, an atrocity that will continue to occur so as long as this resolution remains in force,

There's literally a resolution on the books called "Preventing the Execution of Innocents." Between that and there being nothing in the target that stops nations from running all kinds of appeals processes and the like, does anyone else see the potential Honest Mistake in this clause?

OOC: I've been told that PEoI does not ultimately represent a de-facto ban on capital punishment, as nations more inclined to put to death people can do so. If they're really intent on putting to death an innocent person, it can happen.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

OOC: Wait a minute.

Appalled that this resolution stands in the way of preventing the execution of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit, an atrocity that will continue to occur so as long as this resolution remains in force,

There's literally a resolution on the books called "Preventing the Execution of Innocents." Between that and there being nothing in the target that stops nations from running all kinds of appeals processes and the like, does anyone else see the potential Honest Mistake in this clause?

There are multiple things to unravel here.

First, such an interpretation is predicated on the possibility that appeals processes etc would be able to perfectly capture the innocence and guilt. This is impossible. There is no way sans a ban on the death penalty that innocent people will be fully prevented from being executed.

Second, one could interpret that the repeal clause has an implicit subject of stopping member nations from 'preventing...' (ie that the repeal claims member nations cannot ban the death penalty). Or one could also just pick the legal interpretation that it has an implicit subject of stopping the General Assembly from 'preventing...'. The latter interpretation also is supported by 'The General Assembly' at the top.

Even under the choice of ignoring both correct interpretations, the doctrine of not imputing illegality when alternative interpretations exist applies regardless.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Wait a minute.

Appalled that this resolution stands in the way of preventing the execution of innocent persons for crimes they did not commit, an atrocity that will continue to occur so as long as this resolution remains in force,

There's literally a resolution on the books called "Preventing the Execution of Innocents." Between that and there being nothing in the target that stops nations from running all kinds of appeals processes and the like, does anyone else see the potential Honest Mistake in this clause?

OOC: I don't think that PEoI can be reasonably interpreted to prevent any execution of innocents. As the resolution itself states:

And whereas it is best to set a compromise, where the Assembly does its best efforts to permit, with effective regulations, capital punishment so to best reduce the chance of it falling upon those who have not committed the crime they are accused of:

Hence, the resolution itself admits it can only minimise the likelihood, not outright prevent it.

This repeal is a joke. Fully opposed.

I'm all for this. By the way, looks extremely formal and polished. Great job on the proposal.

Wallenburg wrote:This repeal is a joke. Fully opposed.

We agree with this sentiment, we are likewise against it.

Kissassia's response:

"While some in the World Assembly may find it laudable to repeal capital punishment, and they are certainly welcome to ban capital punishment in their own countries, it would be unfair to interfere with the customs of other countries in a matter that ultimately comes down to personal opinion rather than life or political outlook. The only ban on capital punishment that should take place, in Kissassia's opinion, is a ban on any country executing a person who is not a citizen of that country. For this repeal, Kissassia is voting a strong against."

Kissassia wrote:Kissassia's response:

"While some in the World Assembly may find it laudable to repeal capital punishment, and they are certainly welcome to ban capital punishment in their own countries, it would be unfair to interfere with the customs of other countries in a matter that ultimately comes down to personal opinion rather than life or political outlook. The only ban on capital punishment that should take place, in Kissassia's opinion, is a ban on any country executing a person who is not a citizen of that country. For this repeal, Kissassia is voting a strong against."

The Kingdom of Hverland seconds this succinct opinion, ambassador.

Neymarland wrote:I'm all for this. By the way, looks extremely formal and polished. Great job on the proposal.

Seconded.

For those whom say capital punishment should be taken into a countries hands, the capital punishment ends lives, and inmates have a chance for counseling and rehabilitation, so any thing ending lives, in my opinion, outside of militaristic reasons, should also be decided by the WA.

Neymarland wrote:For those whom say capital punishment should be taken into a countries hands, the capital punishment ends lives, and inmates have a chance for counseling and rehabilitation, so any thing ending lives, in my opinion, outside of militaristic reasons, should also be decided by the WA.

The mere fact that innocent people get put to death is a deeply disturbing atrocity. Even 1 innocent person being put to death warrants a ban on capital punishment.

Kissassia wrote:Kissassia's response:

"While some in the World Assembly may find it laudable to repeal capital punishment, and they are certainly welcome to ban capital punishment in their own countries, it would be unfair to interfere with the customs of other countries in a matter that ultimately comes down to personal opinion rather than life or political outlook. The only ban on capital punishment that should take place, in Kissassia's opinion, is a ban on any country executing a person who is not a citizen of that country. For this repeal, Kissassia is voting a strong against."

“The GA interferes in countries’ customs all the time, ambassador. If we are defining a ‘custom’ as ‘something that is done’, then the GA has prohibited torture, executions for non-murderers, war crimes, some child labour, and a lot of environmentally-damaging actions. This is the purpose of an international legislature.”

I do not support the power of the World Assembly to so appropriate the responsibilities of its member nations as this. This resolution is inherently an overreach, infringing upon the rights of member states excessively.

Kenmoria wrote:“The GA interferes in countries’ customs all the time, ambassador. If we are defining a ‘custom’ as ‘something that is done’, then the GA has prohibited torture, executions for non-murderers, war crimes, some child labour, and a lot of environmentally-damaging actions. This is the purpose of an international legislature.”

The difference here is that the matter of whether the death penalty should be used in extreme circumstances ultimately comes down to a philosophical debate in which all sides have a point, rather than something that most people can agree is heinous like the actions you mentioned above.

Neymarland wrote:For those whom say capital punishment should be taken into a countries hands, the capital punishment ends lives, and inmates have a chance for counseling and rehabilitation, so any thing ending lives, in my opinion, outside of militaristic reasons, should also be decided by the WA.

While this is true in many cases, there are rare cases where rehabilitation is impossible due to factors including, but not limited to: the inmate's view on life, sadistic tendencies, or anarchistic tendencies that view laws against murder as pointless.

Kissassia wrote:

Neymarland wrote:For those whom say capital punishment should be taken into a countries hands, the capital punishment ends lives, and inmates have a chance for counseling and rehabilitation, so any thing ending lives, in my opinion, outside of militaristic reasons, should also be decided by the WA.

While this is true in many cases, there are rare cases where rehabilitation is impossible due to factors including, but not limited to: the inmate's view on life, sadistic tendencies, or anarchistic tendencies that view laws against murder as pointless.

OOC: And what about the risk of innocents being executed?

Just because that is apparent in a few inmates, most do not have this problem. And, due to those problems, they might of not acted out of malicious intent in the crimes that brought them into jail. This also means that those inmate suffering from those effects should not deserve the death penalty.

Neymarland wrote:Just because that is apparent in a few inmates, most do not have this problem. And, due to those problems, they might of not acted out of malicious intent in the crimes that brought them into jail. This also means that those inmate suffering from those effects should not deserve the death penalty.

Not to mention, there is no inherent necessity in executing an individual. At the end of the day, imprisonment is a means to protect society from those deemed to pose a danger to the public. Capital punishment adds nothing except the perceived notion of 'justice', or 'revenge', or the false assumption of 'deterrence'.

"Fellow ambassadors, I speak in the name of the king in declaring Aguera's opposition to the proposed resolution. It has been Aguera's goal to bring ourselves in compliance with the World Assembly since our recent joining of this prestigious body, however the use of capital punishment has been an important facet of Agueran justice since the very beginnings of our nation. It is our humble opinion that there are crimes which exist for which no sufficient penalty exists other than a quick, painless end. Though we respect totally the strength and confidence of this body, we believe that the decision on how to treat heinous criminals, who in the eyes of king and subject have forfeited their rights in the taking of life within our sovereign borders, is a duty which should fall to our people alone. We will abide by any and all restrictions this body declares necessary to preserve basic humanity and protection of the innocent, but the complete removal of this vital instrument of justice simply cannot be supported.

Greater Cesnica wrote:

Neymarland wrote:Just because that is apparent in a few inmates, most do not have this problem. And, due to those problems, they might of not acted out of malicious intent in the crimes that brought them into jail. This also means that those inmate suffering from those effects should not deserve the death penalty.

Not to mention, there is no inherent necessity in executing an individual. At the end of the day, imprisonment is a means to protect society from those deemed to pose a danger to the public. Capital punishment adds nothing except the perceived notion of 'justice', or 'revenge', or the false assumption of 'deterrence'.

While both of you make great points, there have been cases where people who were serving life sentences have escaped and killed someone just to prove that their view of the law is right. And in cases where the death penalty was banned, the law ended up supporting their point by there being no punishment for the new murder.

Also, someone else mentioned the risk of innocent people being executed. While this is a worrying factor, this is also why I believe countries should be banned from executing someone who is not a citizen of that country, and also why Kissassia has a lengthy appeals system that I encourage other countries to accept at their own pace.

OOC: I’m relatively new to the WA so forgive me if this question shows ignorance, but as a WA member state who currently allows the death penalty as one of my nation’s policies, will that policy automatically be changed upon the passage of this repeal, or is this in-character only/ symbolic legislation?

While the actions of the World Assembly are generally accepted as binding, the site does not automatically associate Assembly legislation (say, banning the death penalty) with the policies. They basically are just entirely separate.