[PASSED] Death Penalty Ban

[Imperium Anglorum]

Death Penalty Ban
Human Rights: Significant

---

The World Assembly,

Recognising that there is no convincing and statistically robust evidence that the death penalty deters crime,

Hoping to spend money currently dedicated to the substantial administrative and legal costs of pursuing death penalties on enforcement or rehabilitation programmes which actually do reduce crime,

Gravely concerned that even under stringent protocols death penalties are issued against people who are actually innocent of the crimes for which they are to be punished, and

Believing that the death penalty in its application and pursuit targets the mentally ill, socio-economically disadvantaged, and members of racial and cultural minorities, even when administered under facially neutral statutes, hereby enacts the following:

1. The death penalty is abolished except for crimes under a military penal code committed during time of war.
   
   
2. All sentences contravening section 1 must be commuted forthwith under procedures not inconsistent with World Assembly law.
   
   
3. Member nations collectively may further restrict the use of or abolish the death penalty, section 1 notwithstanding.

Co-authored by Cretox State.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Notes.

The argument that we do X today and thus we should be allowed to do X in the future is not compelling. It's really just an is-ought fallacy: just because bad things are done today does not mean we can do bad things in the future. What is necessary to actually establish a rationale for doing X in the future is a defence for X. The mere statement of X occurring in the present does not suffice. Substitute for X 'the death penalty'.

Why is the ban not absolute? Political support for an absolute ban is unclear. At a later date, such a policy programme might be pursued. This view has been taken in the United Nations by various resolutions over the last decades calling for a phased abolition of the death penalty. Specifically,

During the 62nd, 63rd, 65th and 67th sessions of the United Nations General Assembly, the Plenary of the General Assembly adopted, with increasing majorities, Third Committee resolutions on a Moratorium on the use of the death penalty (62/149, 63/168, 65/206 and 67/176). (Source)

It also was the view taken in the past in areas subject to the jurisdiction of the members of the Council of Europe, which had a series of legislation first abolishing the death penalty during peacetime (specifically, the 1983 Protocol No 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and later abolishing the death penalty under all circumstances (in the 2002 Protocol No 13 to the same convention). The last clause of this resolution is intentional, it keeps open the path for final abolition.

You'll break nation policies! No, it won't. GA resolutions do not affect game policies.

[Separatist Peoples]

"This is a travesty. The Imperium is blatantly leaving our corporate friends and allies outside the protective circle of law. How many innocent Limited Liability Companies must be unjustly dissolved before we see that legal personhood is personhood? How many corporations will we see stifled and suffocated under red tape? Is not the Geico Gecko a man and a brother?

"Full support."

[Baedan]

"Opposed. Death is a right reserved to the sovereign state. The continued existence of the sovereign right to kill is necessary to demarcate the boundaries of the juridico-political regime."

Is not the Geico Gecko a man and a brother?

"It would seem at first glance that he is in fact a gecko, ambassador."

[Separatist Peoples]

"Opposed. Death is a right reserved to the sovereign state. The continued existence of the sovereign right to kill is necessary to demarcate the boundaries of the juridico-political regime."

Is not the Geico Gecko a man and a brother?

"It would seem at first glance that he is in fact a gecko, ambassador."

"You should look beyond what you see. Beyond the gecko is a mostly living not breathing corporate entity that, if aggregated among the people, has feelings and dreams. Mostly for more money, but who are we to judge dreams?"

[Baedan]

"Opposed. Death is a right reserved to the sovereign state. The continued existence of the sovereign right to kill is necessary to demarcate the boundaries of the juridico-political regime."

"It would seem at first glance that he is in fact a gecko, ambassador."

"You should look beyond what you see. Beyond the gecko is a mostly living not breathing corporate entity that, if aggregated among the people, has feelings and dreams. Mostly for more money, but who are we to judge dreams?"

"Do geckos dream of actuarial sheep? I'm glad the GA exists to settle such momentous questions."

[Astrobolt]

"Full support."

[Gatchina]

This, we cannot support. Capital punishment is the ultimate punitive measure the State can impose. We reserve the right to administer it.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The argument from sovereignty is inherently circular. World Assembly member nations give up their sovereignty from the fact the joined the Assembly itself. The argument is akin to asserting that because X is not happening right now, it should never happen. An actual defence of the death penalty on its merits is needed, rather than an assertion of some non-existent right.

[Refuge Isle]

Support, naturally. It always should have been this simple.

[Honeydewistania]

FULL SUPPORT

[Melenavenia]

• Prohibits the imposition, sentencing, or carrying out of any death penalty on any natural person, and

My main concern is what "natural person" means. Does it mean citizens of a nation, those who weren't conceived naturally, or something else entirely?

[Ardiveds]

• Prohibits the imposition, sentencing, or carrying out of any death penalty on any natural person, and

My main concern is what "natural person" means. Does it mean citizens of a nation, those who weren't conceived naturally, or something else entirely?

OOC:

In jurisprudence, a natural person (also physical person in some Commonwealth countries) is a person (in legal meaning, i.e., one who has its own legal personality) that is an individual human being, as opposed to a legal person, which may be a private (i.e., business entity or non-governmental organization) or public (i.e., government) organization. Historically, a human being was not necessarily a natural person in some jurisdictions where slavery existed (subject of a property right) rather than a person.

from wikipedia

[Greater Cesnica]

"Naturally, I wholly support this."

[Scalizagasti]

"Scalizagasti has long since outlawed capital punishment, believing it to be a barbaric and, frankly, an ineffective practice. We fully support this resolution."

[Gatchina]

The argument from sovereignty is inherently circular. World Assembly member nations give up their sovereignty from the fact the joined the Assembly itself. The argument is akin to asserting that because X is not happening right now, it should never happen. An actual defence of the death penalty on its merits is needed, rather than an assertion of some non-existent right.

While we feel an argument based on sovereignty is enough, and we understand that being a part of a greater body relinquishes some of that sovereignty, but not all of it. Judicial matters are hardly one size fits all. It is our belief that human life is sacred, and when one person takes that away from another person, the State must step in and punish murderers. Deterrence is not necessarily the main goal of capital punishment in Gatchina, but rather a strictly punitive measure. We also believe in the rights of the families of victims who deserve to see punishment and receive closure. Life imprisonment, we feel is hardly acceptable, as the victim ceases to exist, forever frozen for a moment in time, never to continue on with their life, while the perpetrator gets to live out his/her natural life, receive visitors, have a relationship with family...does not sit well with us. To snuff out a human life, in our opinon, forefits the perpetrator's right to theirs.

We acknowledge your disagreement and respect your opinions, we only ask for the same in return.

[Imperium Anglorum]

The argument from sovereignty is inherently circular. World Assembly member nations give up their sovereignty from the fact the joined the Assembly itself. The argument is akin to asserting that because X is not happening right now, it should never happen. An actual defence of the death penalty on its merits is needed, rather than an assertion of some non-existent right.

While we feel an argument based on sovereignty is enough, and we understand that being a part of a greater body relinquishes some of that sovereignty, but not all of it. Judicial matters are hardly one size fits all. It is our belief that human life is sacred, and when one person takes that away from another person, the State must step in and punish murderers. Deterrence is not necessarily the main goal of capital punishment in Gatchina, but rather a strictly punitive measure. We also believe in the rights of the families of victims who deserve to see punishment and receive closure. Life imprisonment, we feel is hardly acceptable, as the victim ceases to exist, forever frozen for a moment in time, never to continue on with their life, while the perpetrator gets to live out his/her natural life, receive visitors, have a relationship with family...does not sit well with us. To snuff out a human life, in our opinon, forefits the perpetrator's right to theirs.

We acknowledge your disagreement and respect your opinions, we only ask for the same in return.

(On the convention in the GA that the WA has plenary authority. At a broad level, the convention in the GA is that the General Assembly has plenary authority: that it can pass any law on any topic whatsoever. That is softened by the contradiction rule, which stops future laws from contradicting previous laws. That, however, is not a role-play construct: thinking through the topic in roleplay, the contradiction rule doesn't exist because the Assembly would just amend any previous law to eliminate such contradictions.)

If you feel that human life is sacred, how is it also acceptable to deprive someone else of their life? And to do so in a manner which imperfectly captures guilt? Innocent people are framed – or simply wrongfully found guilty – for murders all the time. Killing an innocent person is little more than an illusion of punishment. The only way to actually ensure that does not happen is simply to end the death penalty. Humans are fallible and should respect the extent of their fallibility.

[Gatchina]

we believe that some circumstances warrant it. For someone who takes another life, this for us is a circumstance that warrants it. A murderer doesn't respect that sanctity and is thus not deserving of mercy. We are likewise encouraged that advances in science significantly reduce the possibility of convicting innocent persons, and in Gatchina, the appeal process is lengthy and taken seriously. This is our position. We cannot support this resolution.

[Greater Cesnica]

we believe that some circumstances warrant it. For someone who takes another life, this for us is a circumstance that warrants it. A murderer doesn't respect that sanctity and is thus not deserving of mercy. We are likewise encouraged that advances in science significantly reduce the possibility of convicting innocent persons, and in Gatchina, the appeal process is lengthy and taken seriously. This is our position. We cannot support this resolution.

"Ambassador, if the chance remains, then that in itself is unjust. If even one innocent is condemned to die, it is a travesty. No matter how efficient, how fool-proof a justice system may be, there is are no absolute safeguard against the possibility of executing an innocent person. Except, of course, the safeguard of prohibiting capital punishment."

[Kenmoria]

“There’s not really much to dissect here, since the proposal is so simple. I actually quite like this, and it is a welcome change from Preventing the Execution of Innocents. Full support for this and any similar formulations of this draft.”

[Pope Saint Peter the Apostle]

"Full support, Ambassador. It is time for the World Assembly to end this most barbaric practice."

[Comfed]

“The ambassador to the most glorious, superior and great nation of Comfed, glory be to its name, supports this resolution. Capital punishment is a practice only used by the worst of capitalist pigs to oppress the proletariat.”
OOC: Full support.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

“The ambassador to the most glorious, superior and great nation of Comfed, glory be to its name, supports this resolution. Capital punishment is a practice only used by the worst of capitalist pigs to oppress the proletariat.”

"On the contrary, ambassador. Fascist war criminals are going to be thrown against the wall one way or the other - but if the state carries out the will of the people under the aegis of a lawful trial and execution for specific, proven crimes, random or undeserved killings are much reduced since people don't lose their faith in the system. Some war criminals have, in the course of their crimes, given up any right to continue breathing and it is not unreasonable for the state to carry out capital sentences against them."

[Araraukar]

Linda arrived slightly late into the debate hall, glancing at the proposal's translated copy in her hand quickly, while taking her seat. "Absolutely n-" She paused, scanning the text more thoroughly, muttered something to herself, "Oh, it's only about direct death penalty? That changes things," and then cleared her throat. "Tentative support for the current draft."

“The ambassador to the most glorious, superior and great nation of Comfed, glory be to its name, supports this resolution. Capital punishment is a practice only used by the worst of capitalist pigs to oppress the proletariat.”

OOC: This is very funny when Araraukar is so socialist that people who don't get the whole "alternative Earth" thing, claim it's impossible.

[KIDS Country]

"KIDS Country has executed more inmates than stock tickers on the Global Union Stock Exchange."

"Full oppose."