NationStates

Cathamye wrote:I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

P Innocents, among other things, prevents member nations from exerting undue influence on defence counsel to misrepresent clients. This is necessary to ensure fair trials and stop wrongful, especially politically motivated, convictions. Moreover, P Innocents also stops people from being removed from World Assembly jurisdiction to face charges which break World Assembly law. Member nations should not be permitted to bus people they dislike to an off-shore island or some black site in some non-WA country so they can violate human rights.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Cathamye wrote:I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

P Innocents, among other things, prevents member nations from exerting undue influence on defence counsel to misrepresent clients. This is necessary to ensure fair trials and stop wrongful, especially politically motivated, convictions. Moreover, P Innocents also stops people from being removed from World Assembly jurisdiction to face charges which break World Assembly law. Member nations should not be permitted to bus people they dislike to an off-shore island or some black site in some non-WA country so they can violate human rights.

President Schirkophf listens as he drinks his vodka and smokes his cigar-

Ambassador Verbatimkophf then states after finishing his cigar-

We have a question how is this not a house of cards type proposal?
House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

If this proposal is legal then it's ok to build onto pre-existing proposal but the rules say a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. It looks to do just that...

We believe the WA has proposals in place as such....Your proposal we believe is a house of Cards type proposal. We believe more are like it....

President Schirkophf then states please explain to the WA how this is with in WA law? It looks like a proposal that's relying on the other proposal which is an ant-death penalty proposal. It looks to build more in accord with such a proposal. Members may say that this proposal has to be repealed to repeal the death penalty. That sounds like a house of cards.... WA nations wonder why we can't get nations to join and this may be a reason...We don't know....

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

Texkentuck wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:P Innocents, among other things, prevents member nations from exerting undue influence on defence counsel to misrepresent clients. This is necessary to ensure fair trials and stop wrongful, especially politically motivated, convictions. Moreover, P Innocents also stops people from being removed from World Assembly jurisdiction to face charges which break World Assembly law. Member nations should not be permitted to bus people they dislike to an off-shore island or some black site in some non-WA country so they can violate human rights.

President Schirkophf listens as he drinks his vodka and smokes his cigar-

Ambassador Verbatimkophf then states after finishing his cigar-

We have a question how is this not a house of cards type proposal?
House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

If this proposal is legal then it's ok to build onto pre-existing proposal but the rules say a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. It looks to do just that...

We believe the WA has proposals in place as such....Your proposal we believe is a house of Cards type proposal. We believe more are like it....

President Schirkophf then states please explain to the WA how this is with in WA law? It looks like a proposal that's relying on the other proposal which is an ant-death penalty proposal. It looks to build more in accord with such a proposal. Members may say that this proposal has to be repealed to repeal the death penalty. That sounds like a house of cards.... WA nations wonder why we can't get nations to join and this may be a reason...We don't know....

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

"President Schirkophf, in your quote explaining House of Cards proposals, you highlighted that repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal. You seem to have missed that this proposal thread is for a repeal, therefore making the House of Cards law irrelevant."

Texkentuck wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:P Innocents, among other things, prevents member nations from exerting undue influence on defence counsel to misrepresent clients. This is necessary to ensure fair trials and stop wrongful, especially politically motivated, convictions. Moreover, P Innocents also stops people from being removed from World Assembly jurisdiction to face charges which break World Assembly law. Member nations should not be permitted to bus people they dislike to an off-shore island or some black site in some non-WA country so they can violate human rights.

President Schirkophf listens as he drinks his vodka and smokes his cigar-

Ambassador Verbatimkophf then states after finishing his cigar-

We have a question how is this not a house of cards type proposal?
House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

If this proposal is legal then it's ok to build onto pre-existing proposal but the rules say a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. It looks to do just that...

We believe the WA has proposals in place as such....Your proposal we believe is a house of Cards type proposal. We believe more are like it....

President Schirkophf then states please explain to the WA how this is with in WA law? It looks like a proposal that's relying on the other proposal which is an ant-death penalty proposal. It looks to build more in accord with such a proposal. Members may say that this proposal has to be repealed to repeal the death penalty. That sounds like a house of cards.... WA nations wonder why we can't get nations to join and this may be a reason...We don't know....

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

Ooc: not how the Rule works.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Cathamye wrote:I could be very well off base here, but if the Death Penalty has already been abolished then what does this resolution (or the resolution that it attempts to repeal) actually do?

P Innocents, among other things, prevents member nations from exerting undue influence on defence counsel to misrepresent clients. This is necessary to ensure fair trials and stop wrongful, especially politically motivated, convictions. Moreover, P Innocents also stops people from being removed from World Assembly jurisdiction to face charges which break World Assembly law. Member nations should not be permitted to bus people they dislike to an off-shore island or some black site in some non-WA country so they can violate human rights.

Thanks for the clarification. It sounds as the title of the resolution might not be as clear as it should be then. It's not really about capital punishment specifically but more about improving the quality and fairness of criminal trials in general. If that's the case, then it doesn't really matter if a country has the death penalty or not since this would prevent misconduct even in non-death penalty cases.

Admiral Pellerin - an average-sized, middle-aged man in a crisp white uniform, a red sash with a gryphon sigil across his chest - rises and puts on his spectacles, reading from a paper in his hand.

"Blood must occasionally be shed in the name of the State; few nations, past or present, have been able to avoid that unpleasant truth. The idea of preventing the shedding of innocent blood, however, does have merit; while some might invoke the principle of 'better an innocent man die than a guilty man go free', we would certainly prefer to avoid making an irreversable mistake that causes far more than simply the death of the wrongly condemned."

He peers up over his spectacles, looking around the hall.

"That being said, what does it say for the idea of justice that one could simply set off a bomb in a busy square or shoot down a crowd in cold blood, then flee over the border and laugh that they cannot be put on trial by the people and the nation they have acted against, because they are protected by a law that is apparently agreed upon by the civilized nations of the world? That is the scenario that section 2 of this proposal evokes in my mind. Some of you may think this an exaggeration, but I think not. The people of Caymarnia are all too familiar with the idea of 'protection by a higher law' being so abused, and we find it unacceptable. The idea that one could commit a heinous crime and flee our jurisdiction, and then claim immunity from extradition to face any form of judicial proceeding - capital or otherwise - under our law for the crime they have committed because of the protection of WA law, is both a threat and a grievous insult to the justice and security of nations."

The admiral removes his spectacles.

"Caymarnia votes in favor of this repeal. If there is a means of carrying out what the original resolution was meant to do, without tying the hands of the State in pursuing justice, we look forward to hearing it."

I would add during the Martial Law, the Death Penalty, but in my country the Death Penalty is abolished in the event of a State of Emergency, there is a death penalty for treason my country.I vote for it, but please add my right to the new name of point 6. Death penalty in: (State of War) but not completely abolished in the case of Martial Law, not in the State of Peace: (NO PENALTY OF DEATH).

Reich Hungary wrote:I would add during the Martial Law, the Death Penalty, but in my country the Death Penalty is abolished in the event of a State of Emergency, there is a death penalty for treason my country.I vote for it, but please add my right to the new name of point 6. Death penalty in: (State of War) but not completely abolished in the case of Martial Law, not in the State of Peace: (NO PENALTY OF DEATH).

That would require a separate repeal and replace effort that I am not interested in attempting.

Wallenburg wrote:

Reich Hungary wrote:I would add during the Martial Law, the Death Penalty, but in my country the Death Penalty is abolished in the event of a State of Emergency, there is a death penalty for treason my country.I vote for it, but please add my right to the new name of point 6. Death penalty in: (State of War) but not completely abolished in the case of Martial Law, not in the State of Peace: (NO PENALTY OF DEATH).

That would require a separate repeal and replace effort that I am not interested in attempting.

I convince you and I will pay you to accept it, I understand the deal.

Separatist Peoples wrote:

Texkentuck wrote:
President Schirkophf listens as he drinks his vodka and smokes his cigar-

Ambassador Verbatimkophf then states after finishing his cigar-

We have a question how is this not a house of cards type proposal?
House of Cards: Proposals cannot rely on the existing resolutions to support it; it must be independent. However, repeals may reference other resolutions as an argument to justify the repeal.

If this proposal is legal then it's ok to build onto pre-existing proposal but the rules say a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. It looks to do just that...

We believe the WA has proposals in place as such....Your proposal we believe is a house of Cards type proposal. We believe more are like it....

President Schirkophf then states please explain to the WA how this is with in WA law? It looks like a proposal that's relying on the other proposal which is an ant-death penalty proposal. It looks to build more in accord with such a proposal. Members may say that this proposal has to be repealed to repeal the death penalty. That sounds like a house of cards.... WA nations wonder why we can't get nations to join and this may be a reason...We don't know....

President Bram W. Schirkophf
Texkentuck Monarchy Republic Federation
UCCR

Ooc: not how the Rule works.

ooc- You made your point with that's not how the rule works...Our nation is leaving the WA because it states that a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. The proposal in repeal should have probably not been up for vote....Our nation is leaving the WA at this time...

Reich Hungary wrote:

Wallenburg wrote:That would require a separate repeal and replace effort that I am not interested in attempting.

I convince you and I will pay you to accept it, I understand the deal.

Go write it yourself.

Texkentuck wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not how the Rule works.

ooc- You made your point with that's not how the rule works...Our nation is leaving the WA because it states that a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. The proposal in repeal should have probably not been up for vote....Our nation is leaving the WA at this time...

Then leave and quit spamming up the thread with incoherent arguments… As you have been told on multiple occasions, no one fucking cares.

Texkentuck wrote:

Separatist Peoples wrote:Ooc: not how the Rule works.

ooc- You made your point with that's not how the rule works...Our nation is leaving the WA because it states that a proposal can't rely on existing resolutions. The proposal in repeal should have probably not been up for vote....Our nation is leaving the WA at this time...

OOC: Shame that you ignored the IC explanation of why you were misinterpreting the thing and instead went for the comment you could be combative toward. That implies you're not actually wanting answers, but conflict.

Was this not declared illegal, or was a consensus not formed?

Wayneactia wrote:Was this not declared illegal, or was a consensus not formed?

I must admit, this is unexpected. The momentum of discussion in the challenge thread did not suggest a Legal ruling.

Wallenburg wrote:

Wayneactia wrote:Was this not declared illegal, or was a consensus not formed?

I must admit, this is unexpected. The momentum of discussion in the challenge thread did not suggest a Legal ruling.

Yeah, it’s weird. The discussion just kind of petered out there and nothing much more was made about it.

I'm sure something official will occur, but we had a series of small mistakes and circumstances that caused it to be missed.

I posted in the private forum for a mod to discard but accidentally posted in the next topic down from the one I needed to post in. When SL caught the time, he asked a mod to discard, but said mod missed it by what we think was a second. None of the mods realized we needed a discard until 17 seconds out and none of us realized the mods didn't know until 17 seconds out.

Separatist Peoples wrote:I'm sure something official will occur, but we had a series of small mistakes and circumstances that caused it to be missed.

I posted in the private forum for a mod to discard but accidentally posted in the next topic down from the one I needed to post in. When SL caught the time, he asked a mod to discard, but said mod missed it by what we think was a second. None of the mods realized we needed a discard until 17 seconds out and none of us realized the mods didn't know until 17 seconds out.

Fair enough. Shit happens. Appreciate the explanation.