NationStates

Xanthal wrote:

Uan aa Boa wrote:Compromise to accommodate those backwater nations that insist on executing people is one thing...

Woah there. If we start name-calling now, how will we lower the debate once a replacement actually gets to a vote?

United Massachusetts wrote:I mean, they are backwater, though.

:P

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Greater vakolicci haven wrote:Of course, the Havenic position is that a ban on citizens owning non-citizens is completely unjustifiable and unnecessary.

Yea, so "compromise" with slavery for 60 years.

Wallenburg wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:Recognising the frequency of miscarriages of justice which can result in the execution of innocents, which results in the deaths of human beings which have done nothing wrong resulting in utter tragedy for the friends and family of the person executed.

"Your racist, anthropocentric language is not appreciated. 'Sapient individuals', if you must, although I would suggest a total rework of this clause to avoid repetition:

Recognising the miscarriages of justice which can result in the tragic execution of innocents,

"Of course, I must point out that this clause makes little sense, since your proposal does nothing to reduce miscarriages of justice."

Affirming that solitary confinement and lifelong imprisonment can often be a much psychologically harsher punishment for heinous crimes than the death penalty.

"That torture might be considered a worse fate than execution is not an argument for the regulation of execution."

Arguing that in many nations, the death penalty is often given out to ethnic minorities more often whereas life imprisonment is given to the ethnic majority more often.

"In any state that has institutionalized racism in its criminal justice system, marginalized ethnicities will be convicted and sentenced more frequently across the board. This clause also has nothing to do with the active clauses, since your proposal does nothing about racism in criminal trials."

Further Arguing that the execution of minors is morally wrong and ought to be outlawed.

"I imagine many member states would disagree."

Noticing that independent nations should reserve the right to allow the death penalty in extreme circumstances.

"If you believe that member states should retain such powers, why have you not put forward any clause guaranteeing them that power?"

With the above pledges recognised, and with the consent of the world assembly's members and delegates, hereby:

"What herebies?"

1. Bans the use of death penalty on all offences except from rape, murder or high treason in wartime.

"Treason in peacetime is no less egregious. Exclude that as well. Also, it should be 'for', not 'from'."

2. Bans the death penalty for minors under the age of legal majority in their nation and persons with mental health issues.

"Depression is a mental health issue. Narcissism is a mental health issue. Why are people experiencing these issues protected from execution?"

3. Establishes the IDPTC (International Death Penalty Tribunal Centre), which all people sentenced to death in their home WA nation have the right to appeal their death sentences.[/align]

"What is this International Death Penalty Tribunal Centre? And why are you tasking a World Assembly committee with handing out death sentences?"

Agarntrop wrote:/bump

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"...These are questions that need answering."

Wallenburg wrote:...Literally all of my criticisms stand unaddressed.

Agarntrop wrote:I'm shutting this thread down for now as I simply don't have enough time for it. This is why my draft stands unedited.

Linux and the X wrote:

Agarntrop wrote:I'm shutting this thread down for now as I simply don't have enough time for it. This is why my draft stands unedited.

Just to clarify, do you intend to return to this at some point?