[DRAFT] Allowing Torture as a Punishment of Crime

[Dilange]

OOC: Oh course the Templars would want to inflict torture as a punishment for crime (AC Joke)

While #9 is still in play, this can't be passed....and even if 9 was repealed, this still wouldn't pass.

[Soviet Canuckistan]

Sergei was taking a nap in the WA chambers when Simone nudged him and whispered "Hey, wake up, your turn to shoot down another draft." He woke up with a jolt and looked over at her with his hungover gaze, Strangers Bar moonshine took it's toll on him, and he relied in a slurred voice "Calm down, ok." He scanned the draft and whispered to her "This one is torture, ouch." He waited for a turn to speak then said to the WA chamber:

"First of all, as previously said, this violates GA Resolution 9. Next, as previously states law isn't a category and spell category right. Thirdly, you don't need all of those colons. Also, define torture, what do you say is torture. Finally, what crimes are punishable by torture, I believe you have more crimes that require torture than rape and murder."

He then returned to his sleep to hopefully to not be disturbed by illegal and blasphemous proposals with visions of exotic dancers in his head.

[The Three Crusader States]

The Ambassader of the Knights of the Temple which has joined with two other crusader states walks over and hits segei with a baton
"Dont attack the writing manner which was excused, two we declared rape and pedophilia as punishable with torture based on the fact that both can be classed as physical and mental torture and, we define torture as alot of pain caused by physical beatings and mental torture by attacking them with fear!"

[The Three Crusader States]

OOC: Oh course the Templars would want to inflict torture as a punishment for crime (AC Joke)

While #9 is still in play, this can't be passed....and even if 9 was repealed, this still wouldn't pass.

OOC: XD haha yeah i just realised that when you mentioned it that the Templars in AC were evil B**tards

and #9 could be revised rather then changed to this one

[Grays Harbor]

and #9 could be revised rather then changed to this one

Nope, revisions aren't permitted, or even possible. (see quote below)

Amendments

You can't amend Resolutions. Period. You can't add on, you can't adjust, you can't edit. If you want to change an existing Resolution, you have to Repeal it first.

[The Three Crusader States]

yeah semi what i ment that we repeal it then add the new law into it then put it back up?

[The Three Crusader States]

i need two endorsements before i can repeal the current legislation

[Mousebumples]

i need two endorsements before i can repeal the current legislation

Talk to your region-mates. Only individuals in your same region can endorse you.

(And regional ads belong in Gameplay.)

[Moronist Decisions]

The Ambassader of the Knights of the Temple which has joined with two other crusader states walks over and hits segei with a baton
"Dont attack the writing manner which was excused, two we declared rape and pedophilia as punishable with torture based on the fact that both can be classed as physical and mental torture and, we define torture as alot of pain caused by physical beatings and mental torture by attacking them with fear!"

And you promised to follow all resolutions in force, including #9, when you joined the WA. Recall that compliance is mandatory. We'll drop a dime on you on the gnomes.

And if you want to repeal #9, please open another thread. We will most likely be extremely against any such effort, however,

[Zaklen]

The Ambassader of the Knights of the Temple which has joined with two other crusader states walks over and hits segei with a baton
"Dont attack the writing manner which was excused, two we declared rape and pedophilia as punishable with torture based on the fact that both can be classed as physical and mental torture and, we define torture as alot of pain caused by physical beatings and mental torture by attacking them with fear!"

Peter Zyvex presses a button on his wrist communicator, and several of his personal guards, who were hanging out in his office, come into the chamber and defenestrate the ambassador from the Knights of the Temple. They then salute Peter, and go back to his office.

Smacking other ambassadors is, A, not a good way to get support for your proposal, and B, a good way to get defenestrated.

[Grays Harbor]

if you want to repeal #9, please open another thread. We will most likely be extremely against any such effort, however,

That is certainly a gentle way to put it. It is more likely that anybody trying to repal #9 would be laughed out of this chamber, defenestrated, cut off from the lounge, have their parking pass revoked, defenestrated again if they manage to find the elevator, and find the lock to the executive washroom has been changed.

Trying to repeal #9 would not be a popular move.

[Thatchland]

The Ambassader of the Knights of the Temple which has joined with two other crusader states walks over and hits segei with a baton
"Dont attack the writing manner which was excused, two we declared rape and pedophilia as punishable with torture based on the fact that both can be classed as physical and mental torture and, we define torture as alot of pain caused by physical beatings and mental torture by attacking them with fear!"

Peter Zyvex presses a button on his wrist communicator, and several of his personal guards, who were hanging out in his office, come into the chamber and defenestrate the ambassador from the Knights of the Temple. They then salute Peter, and go back to his office.

Smacking other ambassadors is, A, not a good way to get support for your proposal, and B, a good way to get defenestrated.

My colleagues - violence only begets violence. Let us all take a deep breath and regain our composure.

OOC: Crusader States - unless I am mistaken, it appears to this player that the 4 nations in your region are all controlled by yourself. Which means it is not allowed, by the rules, for you to get the regional endorsements you seek. If that is the case, you'll need to find a region with more numerous players so that at least 2 of their nations can endorse you.

[The Three Crusader States]

Peter Zyvex presses a button on his wrist communicator, and several of his personal guards, who were hanging out in his office, come into the chamber and defenestrate the ambassador from the Knights of the Temple. They then salute Peter, and go back to his office.

Smacking other ambassadors is, A, not a good way to get support for your proposal, and B, a good way to get defenestrated.

My colleagues - violence only begets violence. Let us all take a deep breath and regain our composure.

OOC: Crusader States - unless I am mistaken, it appears to this player that the 4 nations in your region are all controlled by yourself. Which means it is not allowed, by the rules, for you to get the regional endorsements you seek. If that is the case, you'll need to find a region with more numerous players so that at least 2 of their nations can endorse you.

ooc: there is a reason for that looked at the FAQ didn't wanna be invaded by anyone what so ever XD it was genuniely to protect the extra nations i made easier to find too also i never had any of them in the WA except one which i made resign directly before this one was made so as to not break the rule following the rules is good for everyone also this is the only one with WA status

[Moronist Decisions]

As long as you have an active founder you are fine. Just use a different puppet for the WA and move that to another region.

[Odins Scandinavia]

Torture is disgusting and inhumane. Imprisonment for a long time should be used if you are not comfortable with the death penalty.

in america, for example, it costs about $50,000 to store a typical inmate for one year. that's higher than the GDP/Capita. and they get access to the best medical care available.

when these people kill others, giving them a life sentence, or a particularly long sentence is questionable in effectiveness, as it would simply provide a excellent drain on the tax payer, and a benefit for a sick person to go to prison.

[ShinMomuz]

Interesting note, #9 does not forbid torture on religious grounds.

So an argument could be made that as long as you are doing it expressly because your religion tells you to, and for none of the reasons listed... it's not torture.

Also it says that a government official is necessary, technically in a country with separation of church and state, the clergy are not government officials, and so may torture to their hearts content.

[Odins Scandinavia]

Interesting note, #9 does not forbid torture on religious grounds.

So an argument could be made that as long as you are doing it expressly because your religion tells you to, and for none of the reasons listed... it's not torture.

Also it says that a government official is necessary, technically in a country with separation of church and state, the clergy are not government officials, and so may torture to their hearts content.

lawyered

[ShinMomuz]

Interesting note, #9 does not forbid torture on religious grounds.

So an argument could be made that as long as you are doing it expressly because your religion tells you to, and for none of the reasons listed... it's not torture.

Also it says that a government official is necessary, technically in a country with separation of church and state, the clergy are not government officials, and so may torture to their hearts content.

lawyered

Lawyered? IF by that you mean I'm twisting the letters back against the spirit of the resolution then yes. Technically this nation isn't even a WA member though.

Or is that some sort of rule?

[Cowardly Pacifists]

Interesting note, #9 does not forbid torture on religious grounds.

So an argument could be made that as long as you are doing it expressly because your religion tells you to, and for none of the reasons listed... it's not torture.

Also it says that a government official is necessary, technically in a country with separation of church and state, the clergy are not government officials, and so may torture to their hearts content.

Oh what rubbish! The resolution doesn't need to go through and say "no torture for this reason" and "no torture for that reason." It casts a blanket ban over torture for any reason. The act says that torture "is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission or threats thereof, is to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law." What part of that seems to say "unless it's for religious reasons" to you?

The resolution goes even further, stating that:

• "Member nations shall prohibit torture and attempts to commit torture,"
• "Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture,"and
• "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused;"

What part of any of that says "but you can do it if it's part of your religion?"

[ShinMomuz]

Interesting note, #9 does not forbid torture on religious grounds.

So an argument could be made that as long as you are doing it expressly because your religion tells you to, and for none of the reasons listed... it's not torture.

Also it says that a government official is necessary, technically in a country with separation of church and state, the clergy are not government officials, and so may torture to their hearts content.

Oh what rubbish! The resolution doesn't need to go through and say "no torture for this reason" and "no torture for that reason." It casts a blanket ban over torture for any reason. The act says that torture "is designated a crime against humanity, and its commission, including assistance in such commission or threats thereof, is to be designated a heinous crime under national and international law." What part of that seems to say "unless it's for religious reasons" to you?

The resolution goes even further, stating that:

• "Member nations shall prohibit torture and attempts to commit torture,"
• "Member nations may not invoke extraordinary circumstances, such as armed conflict, state of emergency or civil unrest, to justify acts of torture,"and
• "An order to commit torture is a manifestly illegal order, and must be refused;"

What part of any of that says "but you can do it if it's part of your religion?"

The part where it defines torture as "1. ‘Torture’ is defined as an act of intentionally inflicting pain, severe discomfort or suffering on a person for the purposes of intimidation, coercion, personal punishment or interrogation, or to extract information, confession or concession to demands from them or any other person, where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity."

It does not list among it's reasons "My religion demands that X type of criminal have X sort of torture done to them" In addition because this first argument is admittedly pretty weak and could fall under "personal punishment", so long as you keep the government officially out of it, then by the law it isn't torture. Therefore, they can't be punished for it.

Not that I'd advocate that... but still I thought it'd be fun to hand the poor guy some ammunition.

[Cowardly Pacifists]

It does not list among it's reasons "My religion demands that X type of criminal have X sort of torture done to them" In addition because this first argument is admittedly pretty weak and could fall under "personal punishment", so long as you keep the government officially out of it, then by the law it isn't torture. Therefore, they can't be punished for it.

Actually, I think you might be right about that from a technical standpoint. The act does a sloppy job and defines torture as something that requires governmental approval or assistance. Technically, torture by a private individual is not even "torture" for the purposes of this act, and a nation is perfectly free to criminalize "torture" (an act committed with governmental approval or assistance) while permitting torture by private individuals (because such actions are not "torture," according to the provisions of this act).

The author really should not have included the part stating: "where committed with the approval or assistance of a government official or person acting in such capacity" and they should have said something like: "for purposes including - but not limited to - intimidation, coercion, etc."

But the meaning of the act is pretty clear, despite such technical flaws. It does raise an interesting issue for the Secretariat, but they are rarely so hard-core in their analysis. I think the intent and meaning of #9 is pretty clear and would cause this sort of act (legalizing governmental/theocratic torture for purposes of punishment) to be deleted if proposed. That said, you point out a valid loophole that some nations may want to RP.

[Zaklen]

Maybe that should be fixed in a "Repeal and Replace" if that is ever implemented.

[The Three Crusader States]

there we go we finally found a loophole in the bill also my nation(s) are theocracy

[Cowardly Pacifists]

there we go we finally found a loophole in the bill also my nation(s) are theocracy

Actually, in your case I think this loophole would not apply. Since your religious institution is your government, any action by an official of your religion would also be action by a government official.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure the loophole ShinMomuz identified would only exist for those nations where religious institutions are separate from the government. Any torture by a religious official in a theocracy would be "intentionally inflicting pain... for the purposes of... concession to the demands from them of any other person... committed with the approval or assistance of a government official."

[The Three Crusader States]

there we go we finally found a loophole in the bill also my nation(s) are theocracy

Actually, in your case I think this is loophole would not apply. Since your religious institution is your government, any action by an official of your religion would also be action by a government official.

Ironically, I'm pretty sure the loophole ShinMomuz identified would only exist for those nations where religious institutions are separate from the government. Any torture by a religious official in a theocracy would be "intentionally inflicting pain... for the purposes of... concession to the demands from them of any other person... committed with the approval or assistance of a government official."

i mean a loophole to fix XD i wasn't going to use it cause technically it is still illegal