[DEFEATED] Extrajudicial Punishment Ban

[Calladan]

"I have some reservations about this resolutions legality but to my horror can't seem to find any resolution that actually guarantees a persons right to due process. As such I merely request a clarification that this resolution shall not be interpreted so as to infringe on a persons right to self-defence."

"This proposal does not involve itself so much in questions of due process but in the prevention of vigilantism."

But if you are being attacked, say, then you have disabled your attacker and he is lying on the ground, utterly helpless, and you then proceed to kick the ever loving crap out of him until he is bleeding and in a coma - would that be considered as crossing the line from self-defence and into vigilantism? (Or what if you kill your attacker if he won't stop attacking no matter how much you hit him?)

While I can't speak for the delegate from Aclion, I suspect that might be where they are coming from - at what point does self-defence cross to vigilantism and *could* this proposal be used by an over-zealous government to deter people from acting in self-defence for fear of punishment?

[Araraukar]

at what point does self-defence cross to vigilantism

I have to say I've never associated "vigilantes" with "self-defence". In my understanding vigilantism is about interfering in a situation where you are not the slighted party/victim of the crime. If you're going after someone who did something bad to you after the situation has been resolved one way or another, then you're no better than the guy you're trying to get.

Basically, revenge is just committing another crime, vigilantism is to either stop a crime that's happening or to catch a bad guy the normal law enforcement isn't able to get for some reason.^{(see OOC)}

Not sure how you can ban it from happening, though. You can make it illegal, sure, but as vigilantism would most often count as some sort of assault and thus likely against national laws as is, I'm not sure it would make any difference. Further, considering how non-sexual assault and murder are not, to my knowledge, banned by the WA, except in some very special cases (like child abuse), I really don't see the point to use international legislation to specialize in such a tiny portion of the bigger issue.

There was a bit in one of the resolutions I pointed out before, I think, that mentioned that the members of the public are allowed to keep a criminal from escaping until the law enforcement can arrive to properly arrest them.

OOC: Depending on if we go by comics or movies and which ones of them, Batman could fall under both categories; he does good for the sake of the city and other people, but in many of the versions (last I counted, I'd read 5 different comic versions, and I think there are at least three movie versions) he also gets revenge on the thugs that murdered his parents, and/or the bad guys' boss.

[Calladan]

at what point does self-defence cross to vigilantism

I have to say I've never associated "vigilantes" with "self-defence". In my understanding vigilantism is about interfering in a situation where you are not the slighted party/victim of the crime. If you're going after someone who did something bad to you after the situation has been resolved one way or another, then you're no better than the guy you're trying to get.

Basically, revenge is just committing another crime, vigilantism is to either stop a crime that's happening or to catch a bad guy the normal law enforcement isn't able to get for some reason.^{(see OOC)}

Not sure how you can ban it from happening, though. You can make it illegal, sure, but as vigilantism would most often count as some sort of assault and thus likely against national laws as is, I'm not sure it would make any difference. Further, considering how non-sexual assault and murder are not, to my knowledge, banned by the WA, except in some very special cases (like child abuse), I really don't see the point to use international legislation to specialize in such a tiny portion of the bigger issue.

There was a bit in one of the resolutions I pointed out before, I think, that mentioned that the members of the public are allowed to keep a criminal from escaping until the law enforcement can arrive to properly arrest them.

OOC: Depending on if we go by comics or movies and which ones of them, Batman could fall under both categories; he does good for the sake of the city and other people, but in many of the versions (last I counted, I'd read 5 different comic versions, and I think there are at least three movie versions) he also gets revenge on the thugs that murdered his parents, and/or the bad guys' boss.

As with most proposals relating to crime, I don't think the author expects this to stop all vigilantism outright, but instead it requires governments to class it as a criminal offence in an attempt to deter it. (In the same way most government criminalise murder, sexual assault, child abuse and disco dancing in an attempt to stamp out such abominable behaviour).

And I also agree that a person has a right to defend themselves in the instant the crime is happening (and using what would be deemed reasonable force), but that doesn't extend to - two days later - hunting down the person that attacked them and doing something mean to them (with a baseball bat or a vat of acid).

And in the end it would be up to the judicial branch (or whatever legal system the country has) to determine what "reasonable force" is and whether the said person crossed the line.

[Araraukar]

And in the end it would be up to the judicial branch (or whatever legal system the country has) to determine what "reasonable force" is and whether the said person crossed the line.

And that's how it should remain: a national issue to be decided on local level. Not mandated by international legislation.

[Calladan]

And in the end it would be up to the judicial branch (or whatever legal system the country has) to determine what "reasonable force" is and whether the said person crossed the line.

And that's how it should remain: a national issue to be decided on local level. Not mandated by international legislation.

I suppose that depends on your point of view. Although however I phrase the next sentence I am going to sound like a lunatic / maniac / potential sociopath (please keep in mind I am not - or at least I do not believe I am!).

If I am going to go visit another country, it might be nice to know that I am not going to be the subject of vigilante justice if I decide to steal someone's purse or something like that. And people might feel safer in Calladan knowing that - if a crime is committed against them - the police will deal with it, instead of a guy dressed in green leather, or a woman in a skin tight cat-suit.

I have no issues with the punishments being decided at a national level, but the idea of enforcing a ban on vigilante justice right across The WA is.... interesting and not unappealing.

And seriously - I swear I am not the type to steal someone's purse. Unless it is a REALLY pretty purse with Hello Kitty on it (Just kidding).

[Araraukar]

And people might feel safer in Calladan knowing that - if a crime is committed against them - the police will deal with it, instead of a guy dressed in green leather, or a woman in a skin tight cat-suit.

Even if it was the law enforcement who was dressed like that?

[Aclion]

"I have some reservations about this resolutions legality but to my horror can't seem to find any resolution that actually guarantees a persons right to due process. As such I merely request a clarification that this resolution shall not be interpreted so as to infringe on a persons right to self-defence."

"This proposal does not involve itself so much in questions of due process but in the prevention of vigilantism."

"Yes yes but vigilante justice necessarily violates the right to due process. Indeed his fact is a large part of what makes it objectionable."

"I have some reservations about this resolutions legality but to my horror can't seem to find any resolution that actually guarantees a persons right to due process."

GA #37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, perhaps? Depending on what you mean by "due process", of course. If it's just about being detained, then maybe GA #201, Habeas Corpus? And "due process" is mentioned in relation to death penalties in GA #375, Crime and Punishment.

What I'm referring to is the principal that no person should suffer punishment for a crime without due process. There are many resolutions that give accused rights under due process, one that requires persons formally charged with a crime be given due process and one that requires it in cases of capitol punishment. But there is no law I could find preventing a person being punished for an alleged crime without trial, provided no charges are filed and the punishment does not actually kill them.

While I can't speak for the delegate from Aclion, I suspect that might be where they are coming from - at what point does self-defence cross to vigilantism and *could* this proposal be used by an over-zealous government to deter people from acting in self-defence for fear of punishment?

"Yes this is the problem. It is not uncommon for persons who defend themselves against an attacker to be charged as vigilantes, similarly it is not uncommon for vigilantes to use the claim of self defense. It is also not uncommon for governments to look the other way when... politically inconvenient persons are attacked, then use laws liek this to arrest them for defending themselves. It is an issue that cannot go unaddressed."

[Calladan]

While I can't speak for the delegate from Aclion, I suspect that might be where they are coming from - at what point does self-defence cross to vigilantism and *could* this proposal be used by an over-zealous government to deter people from acting in self-defence for fear of punishment?

Yes this is the problem. It is not uncommon for persons who defend themselves against an attacker to be charged as vigilantes, similarly it is not uncommon for vigilantes to use the claim of self defense. It is an issue that cannot go unaddressed. Worse still a government could use this resolution to engage in political or social oppression, looking the other way as a mob attacks a disliked group then rushing in to arrest members of that group when they defend themselves from violence.

Although couldn't it be argued that not punishing a mob that attacks a group is violating CoCR - clearly they are discriminating against the members of that group based on whatever makes that group disliked (race, creed, colour, political views etc) and as such the group should be punished for that?

[Aclion]

Although couldn't it be argued that not punishing a mob that attacks a group is violating CoCR - clearly they are discriminating against the members of that group based on whatever makes that group disliked (race, creed, colour, political views etc) and as such the group should be punished for that?

In theory yes. In practice no.

[Vigilante justice]

I am the night.

You can't ban me.

Really though, my heart stopped when I saw this. I thought some dude was trying to ban me again.

[Aclion]

I am the night.

You can't ban me.

Really though, my heart stopped when I saw this. I thought some dude was trying to ban me again.

I hope you will campaign against this, I'll even give you some teles.
I'm not particularly opposed to this proposal mind, I just think it would be funny.

[Vigilante justice]

I am the night.

You can't ban me.

Really though, my heart stopped when I saw this. I thought some dude was trying to ban me again.

I hope you will campaign against this, I'll even give you some teles.
I'm not particularly opposed to this proposal mind, I just think it would be funny.

That is an amazing idea.

[States of Glory WA Office]

"Batman has created a criminal class to match him with his brutal punitive regime causing increased complexity and efficiency in criminal syndicates."

"Corruption is best dealt with through oversight and reform not through a darkly clothed fascist figure keeping the streets 'clean'. Batman has brought Gotham City nothing but pain and devastation."

Teran Saber: "By any chance do I smell facepaint on you? Sounds like you've been clowning around a bit, if you know what I mean. Maybe even to the point where everything's one big joke to you."

Harold: Why so serious, Teran? (laughs maniacally)

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: Superheroes are so last-century colonial. We think the meat on this debate doesn't have to do with associated impacts on Magicman, Actionman, Punchman, or Justicewoman. It has to do with the effects of vigilantism on the justice systems of societies in which the normal justice system has either failed, is not entirely functional, or suffers from severe issues that make it utterly ineffective. To quote Velnax's responses in the transcript,

It fails to understand that the existence of vigilantism is predicated on the preexisting structure of society being unable to provide adequate justice and property rights enforcement. It is simply no the case that vigilantism is the proximate cause of corrupt societies. While it certainly provides a equilibriating force towards the maintenance of the low-trust equilibrium, that is a wholly separate issue which cannot be tackled with such a broad brush such as this.

The argument isn't that vigilantism is great, it is that anarchy is worse. Politically, we have seen this play out over and over again. Mafias and gangs are formed in places where there is an absence of structured authority that leads to anarchy. Vigilantism is a Coaseian solution to the lack of effective property rights enforcement. The solution isn't to ban vigilantism, it is to provide adequate enforcement of the law.

Nations generally want to bring all areas under their control, as this consolidates their hold on power and their monopoly on force. To use this argument [Velnax references the argument by Bakton that vigilantism only exists because governments turn a blind eye to its effects], you have to prove that nations would actually turn a blind eye to it. The issue is not that nations are unwilling to rein in mafiosi, it is that they are unable. Passing resolutions isn't going to solve a simple problem of resources.

We heartily agree with our colleagues from Kalata, and recommend to the author that they consider the impacts and difficulties of forcing nations to undertake attempts to pacify what is effectively a private legal system when those nations lack the resources to create anything but chaos and anarchy.

[Osnil Returns]

I am the night.

You can't ban me.

Really though, my heart stopped when I saw this. I thought some dude was trying to ban me again.

Well, nobody expected the vigilante inquisition.

[Wealthatonia]

I would like to accuse Bakhton of being run by a supervillain and thus not a legitimate government.

[Lord Dominator]

I would like to accuse Bakhton of being run by a supervillain and thus not a legitimate government.

"Hey now, being ruled by supervillians is a perfectly legitimate form of government!"

[Sierra Lyricalia]

NORTH: Superheroes are so last-century colonial. We think the meat on this debate doesn't have to do with associated impacts on Magicman, Actionman, Punchman, or Justicewoman. It has to do with the effects of vigilantism on the justice systems of societies in which the normal justice system has either failed, is not entirely functional, or suffers from severe issues that make it utterly ineffective. To quote Velnax's responses in the transcript,

It fails to understand that the existence of vigilantism is predicated on the preexisting structure of society being unable to provide adequate justice and property rights enforcement. It is simply no the case that vigilantism is the proximate cause of corrupt societies. While it certainly provides a equilibriating force towards the maintenance of the low-trust equilibrium, that is a wholly separate issue which cannot be tackled with such a broad brush such as this.

The argument isn't that vigilantism is great, it is that anarchy is worse. Politically, we have seen this play out over and over again. Mafias and gangs are formed in places where there is an absence of structured authority that leads to anarchy. Vigilantism is a Coaseian solution to the lack of effective property rights enforcement. The solution isn't to ban vigilantism, it is to provide adequate enforcement of the law.

Nations generally want to bring all areas under their control, as this consolidates their hold on power and their monopoly on force. To use this argument [Velnax references the argument by Bakton that vigilantism only exists because governments turn a blind eye to its effects], you have to prove that nations would actually turn a blind eye to it. The issue is not that nations are unwilling to rein in mafiosi, it is that they are unable. Passing resolutions isn't going to solve a simple problem of resources.

We heartily agree with our colleagues from Kalata, and recommend to the author that they consider the impacts and difficulties of forcing nations to undertake attempts to pacify what is effectively a private legal system when those nations lack the resources to create anything but chaos and anarchy.

"We fail to understand how any of these criticisms apply. If a nation is unable to assert a monopoly of force over a particular area, it will be unable to put the mob and cartel forces out of business. Even with this law in place, such a weak government will not be able to overthrow the warlords' control of their territories; chaos will not return to those shores just from passing this law. I don't see that scenario as the main focus of this proposal anyway; rather it is targeted at lynch mobs and other nefarious symptoms of a cavalier attitude toward policing and civil rights. Where the government has adequate territorial control, vigilantism is unacceptable."

[Imperium Anglorum]

NORTH: Our issue isn't with bill's goals, it is rather with how it attempts to force nations to start internal conflicts. There are times when negotiated settlement is a better idea than throwing troops at a problem and hoping it dies down. There were quite a few troubles in Eire which we attempted to take down by force. Turns out that it is cheaper and much more peaceful to negotiate the problem away to find a amenable solution to both sides.

[Club-Penguin]

Club Penguin is in support of this resolution as long as it is clarified that it is only vigilante punishment that is made illegal, and not vigilante action. Vigilante action in private heroes taking action to capture criminals is a positive to the society, and should be encouraged.

The current definition of Vigilante Justice seems to do this well, but we have one amendment we would propose.

All member nations must make vigilante justice a criminal offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems

All member nations must make vigilante justice a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems

This will ensure that each nation has the right to classify the offense as they see fit. We would support the current resolution with the mentioned amendment included.

[Calladan]

NORTH: Our issue isn't with bill's goals, it is rather with how it attempts to force nations to start internal conflicts. There are times when negotiated settlement is a better idea than throwing troops at a problem and hoping it dies down. There were quite a few troubles in Eire which we attempted to take down by force. Turns out that it is cheaper and much more peaceful to negotiate the problem away to find a amenable solution to both sides.

I am not convinced that is the case. Because the side against which the force is used gets a bit pissed off, and - in turn - uses more force in retaliation. This leads to an escalation on both sides, and - quite possibly - to civil war (or something equally tragic).

We learned a truth a long time ago - one we sometimes overlook, but one we always return to -

When you fire the first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken. How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill... before everybody does what they were ALWAYS going to have to do from the very beginning! SIT. DOWN. AND. TALK.

[States of Glory WA Office]

This leads to an escalation on both sides, and - quite possibly - to civil war.

Fairburn (dressed as Batman and speaking in an unusually deep voice): Civil war, you say? You may want to ask Captain America about that.

When you fire the first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken. How many lives shattered! How much blood will spill... before everybody does what they were ALWAYS going to have to do from the very beginning! SIT. DOWN. AND. TALK.

Fairburn: Ambassador, you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I am not convinced that is the case. Because the side against which the force is used gets a bit pissed off, and - in turn - uses more force in retaliation. This leads to an escalation on both sides, and - quite possibly - to civil war (or something equally tragic).

Yes, you're supporting my point on why the World Assembly ought not try encourage its members to start small internal wars.

[Bakhton]

Club Penguin is in support of this resolution as long as it is clarified that it is only vigilante punishment that is made illegal, and not vigilante action. Vigilante action in private heroes taking action to capture criminals is a positive to the society, and should be encouraged.

The current definition of Vigilante Justice seems to do this well, but we have one amendment we would propose.

All member nations must make vigilante justice a criminal offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems

All member nations must make vigilante justice a criminal or civil offence subject to the sentencing of the differing jurisdictions of their respective legal systems

This will ensure that each nation has the right to classify the offense as they see fit. We would support the current resolution with the mentioned amendment included.

"Thanks for the suggestion!"

[Estonland]

Yes
Breaking the law to counter a law breakage does not solve anything.If vigilantes only kept peace,that would be fine,but the problem is that they do not act on the rule of law,but instead on their own feelings.This makes them more corruptable,and they're hard to investigate as they are not official,legal law enforcement officers.