[LEGALITY CHALLENGE] Extrajudicial Punishment Ban

[Araraukar]

As it has been a full week since this challenge has been raised I am formally a statement on it's status so as to prevent GenSec procedure from being used as a filibuster.

You realize they've sometimes taken well over a month to reach a decision?

[Aclion]

As it has been a full week since this challenge has been raised I am formally a statement on it's status so as to prevent GenSec procedure from being used as a filibuster.

You realize they've sometimes taken well over a month to reach a decision?

Yes but we don't know if they even intend to hear the case yet.

[Thyerata]

You realize they've sometimes taken well over a month to reach a decision?

Yes but we don't know if they even intend to hear the case yet.

I take Sciongrad at his word. He has said to me that they will look at it, once finals and things in real life are done

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If it helps, my initial read is that GAR #37 only covers cases where formal criminal charges have been filed in the member state's legal system or functional equivalent; and that GAR #9 only covers cases where the extrajudicial punishment in question is specifically​ intended to inflict pain or suffering (as opposed to a quick death, as in a lynching). My sense is that the challenged proposal doesn't violate either the contradiction or duplication rules. But we haven't discussed it amongst ourselves and that's my opinion only.

[Separatist Peoples]

You're not GenSec so you have no power to do so. Sciongrad has told me that three of them have finals IRL, so they are going to wait until after then

And one of us has law school finals, which are extra grueling.

As it has been a full week since this challenge has been raised I am formally a statement on it's status so as to prevent GenSec procedure from being used as a filibuster.

We don't filibuster challenges. We would like to see more debate among the regulars, but we are also waiting for teammates to recover from illness or family obligations. Chillax.

[Tzorsland]

And one of us has law school finals, which are extra grueling.

Finals? Do you realize it's been over 30 years since I last took a final?

Law school finals? Wait a second! Who appointed a lawyer (to be) on Gen Sec? What is this, you want professionalism or something?

Good luck everyone on your finals.

[Bears Armed]

If it helps, my initial read is that GAR #37 only covers cases where formal criminal charges have been filed in the member state's legal system or functional equivalent; and that GAR #9 only covers cases where the extrajudicial punishment in question is specifically​ intended to inflict pain or suffering (as opposed to a quick death, as in a lynching). My sense is that the challenged proposal doesn't violate either the contradiction or duplication rules. But we haven't discussed it amongst ourselves and that's my opinion only.

it's my opinion as well.

[Covenstone]

If it helps, my initial read is that GAR #37 only covers cases where formal criminal charges have been filed in the member state's legal system or functional equivalent; and that GAR #9 only covers cases where the extrajudicial punishment in question is specifically​ intended to inflict pain or suffering (as opposed to a quick death, as in a lynching). My sense is that the challenged proposal doesn't violate either the contradiction or duplication rules. But we haven't discussed it amongst ourselves and that's my opinion only.

it's my opinion as well.

Depending on how badly the lynching does, that can be pretty painful, full of suffering and fairly torturous.

Just saying.

[Bananaistan]

You're not GenSec so you have no power to do so. Sciongrad has told me that three of them have finals IRL, so they are going to wait until after then

And one of us has law school finals, which are extra grueling.

As it has been a full week since this challenge has been raised I am formally a statement on it's status so as to prevent GenSec procedure from being used as a filibuster.

We don't filibuster challenges. We would like to see more debate among the regulars, but we are also waiting for teammates to recover from illness or family obligations. Chillax.

That's sort of all well and good while the current challenges are non-urgent. Were someone to submit, say, a questionable repeal of GAR#2 or some sort of duplication/contradiction thereof, there'd be great craic!

[Aclion]

you have no power to do so.

Clearly I do.

[Thyerata]

you have no power to do so.

Clearly I do.

Please read Separatist People's post above about not filibustering

[Bakhton]

Good luck on law finals.
I apologize if I'm going to quick, I'm just excited about this proposal.

[Audioslavia]

you have no power to do so.

Clearly I do.

This isn't a first time a mod has had to come in and tell you that what you've written is simultaneously annoying, useless and spammy.

*** One day ban ***

[Bakhton]

Lara Qzu coughs.

[Thyerata]

Lara Qzu coughs.

We can do one of two things. Either formally put the legality challenge (and the resolution it's tied to) on hold until the Secretariat is back at full strength, or you can push your resolution through, but it means that this legality challenge continues, and the Secretariat will be pushed for time...

[Sciongrad]

Lara Qzu coughs.

We can do one of two things. Either formally put the legality challenge (and the resolution it's tied to) on hold until the Secretariat is back at full strength, or you can push your resolution through, but it means that this legality challenge continues, and the Secretariat will be pushed for time...

Fret not friends, it seems we have a majority. Opinion forthcoming.

[Thyerata]

We can do one of two things. Either formally put the legality challenge (and the resolution it's tied to) on hold until the Secretariat is back at full strength, or you can push your resolution through, but it means that this legality challenge continues, and the Secretariat will be pushed for time...

Fret not friends, it seems we have a majority. Opinion forthcoming.

Thanks Scion. I appreciate your effort to get this resolved quickly, notwithstanding the fact that you're up to your ears in RL exams (feel my sympathy)

[Sciongrad]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Ruling ***

Challenged Proposal: Extrajudicial Punishment Ban
Date of Decision: 3 May 2017
Decision: Proposal is legal, 4-0 (Majority reached, votes pending)
Rules Applied: Duplication

Sciongrad, joined by Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricallia, and Glen-Rhodes, wrote the opinion:

The question before us is whether or not extrajudicial punishment has already been proscribed incidentally by broader requirements in extant legislation. The first contender is GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which guarantees a right to a trial to all individuals accused of committing crimes. GAR#37 only requires that individuals charged with crimes be given a trial, however. To our knowledge, no resolution forbids punishing individuals outside of the formal legal system. Even GAR#323, No Penalty Without Law, only prevents member nations from punishing individuals where the law doesn't exist. Punishing someone for suspected political subversion, if that's illegal, through extrajudicial execution is not forbidden by any resolution. Recall GAR#112 once banned summary execution, which is a type of extrajudicial punishment.

With this in mind, we hold that the resolution does not, in fact, duplicate extant legislation.

[Bakhton]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Ruling ***

Challenged Proposal: Extrajudicial Punishment Ban
Date of Decision: 3 May 2017
Decision: Proposal is legal, 4-0 (Majority reached, votes pending)
Rules Applied: Duplication

Sciongrad, joined by Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricallia, and Glen-Rhodes, wrote the opinion:

The question before us is whether or not extrajudicial punishment has already been proscribed incidentally by broader requirements in extant legislation. The first contender is GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which guarantees a right to a trial to all individuals accused of committing crimes. GAR#37 only requires that individuals charged with crimes be given a trial, however. To our knowledge, no resolution forbids punishing individuals outside of the formal legal system. Even GAR#323, No Penalty Without Law, only prevents member nations from punishing individuals where the law doesn't exist. Punishing someone for suspected political subversion, if that's illegal, through extrajudicial execution is not forbidden by any resolution. Recall GAR#112 once banned summary execution, which is a type of extrajudicial punishment.

With this in mind, we hold that the resolution does not, in fact, duplicate extant legislation.

Lara Qzu plays her victory music.
"Thank you General Secretariat!"

[Thyerata]

It was nothing more than a hunch that I wanted to test. As someone who respects the law, I accept this decision, notwithstanding the fact that it goes against me. Now that this has been cleared up, I fully support the resolution (not that I didn't support the concept of prohibiting extrajudicial punishment - I just wasn't sure if it had already been done)

[Bears Armed]

*** General Assembly Secretariat Ruling ***

Challenged Proposal: Extrajudicial Punishment Ban
Date of Decision: 3 May 2017
Decision: Proposal is legal, 4-0 (Majority reached, votes pending)
Rules Applied: Duplication

Sciongrad, joined by Separatist Peoples, Sierra Lyricallia, and Glen-Rhodes, wrote the opinion:

The question before us is whether or not extrajudicial punishment has already been proscribed incidentally by broader requirements in extant legislation. The first contender is GAR#37, Fairness in Criminal Trials, which guarantees a right to a trial to all individuals accused of committing crimes. GAR#37 only requires that individuals charged with crimes be given a trial, however. To our knowledge, no resolution forbids punishing individuals outside of the formal legal system. Even GAR#323, No Penalty Without Law, only prevents member nations from punishing individuals where the law doesn't exist. Punishing someone for suspected political subversion, if that's illegal, through extrajudicial execution is not forbidden by any resolution. Recall GAR#112 once banned summary execution, which is a type of extrajudicial punishment.

With this in mind, we hold that the resolution does not, in fact, duplicate extant legislation.

Bears Armed considers this proposal legal on the simpler basis that the relevant existing legislation specifically limits offical extrajudicial punishments, whereas this proposal is aimed primarily at ensuring members act to limit unofficial extrajudicial punishments.