[INSTA-REPEAL] Repeal Preventing the Execution of Innocents

[Lord Dominator]

In Regalus, all felonies are punishable by death. You have my support for a repeal

"I'm honestly surprised your government still stands, or you have an appreciable population."

[Arasi Luvasa]

In Regalus, all felonies are punishable by death. You have my support for a repeal

"And that is why the resolution at vote is important, we have homicidal governments like this."

[West Phoenicia]

If the current resolution at vote does indeed pass. You have the assurance that the Confederate Empire of West Phoenicia will support a repeal.

[Hobbesistan]

In Regalus, all felonies are punishable by death. You have my support for a repeal

"And that is why the resolution at vote is important, we have homicidal governments like this."

"You think governments like that in the WA if such motion passes and isn't repealed? The resolution at hand does nothing but make the supporting delegates feel good at the expense of every other nation."

[South Acren]

They have no right to tell ME what I can't do to MY citizens.

This Assembly does, in fact, have such a right, which you grant by your voluntary membership.

In fact they don't. Not any more. I can now kill innocents and not have to deal with the damn WA

[Nunavutialand]

In Regalus, all felonies are punishable by death. You have my support for a repeal

"And that is why the resolution at vote is important, we have homicidal governments like this."

"Most ironic coming from the delegate whose nation arrests people for gambling."

[Separatist Peoples]

"And that is why the resolution at vote is important, we have homicidal governments like this."

"Most ironic coming from the delegate whose nation arrests people for gambling."

"At the very least, those people aren't facing the death penalty."

[Nunavutialand]

"Most ironic coming from the delegate whose nation arrests people for gambling."

"At the very least, those people aren't facing the death penalty."

"Aren't they facing life sentences though? Isn't that worse?"

[Xanthal]

"At the very least, those people aren't facing the death penalty."

"Aren't they facing life sentences though? Isn't that worse?"

Don't bother, I've been barking up that tree for weeks. The crowd pushing prohibition is positively deaf to any moral argument that doesn't presuppose any sort of life is preferable to dying.

[New Excalibus]

Nope, against this completely.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"At the very least, those people aren't facing the death penalty."

"Aren't they facing life sentences though? Isn't that worse?"

"Gambling is illegal, therefore we arrest gamblers. We arrest gamblers, therefore their sentence must be life-imprisonment. Quite the house of cards you have built, a shame if I pulled one out. Alright enough fun. Just because something is illegal does not mean that those guilty receive the highest possible sentence. Often times there are other punishments; speeders are often not simply imprisoned, nor are jay-walkers and vandalisers. The punishment for a crime can easily be a hefty fine, not imprisonment. When making an argument, one should not build it on a faulty assumption that is rather ridiculous. Or is it that you assume that my country gives the highest possible punishment because your nation executes people for petty theft, playing contact or physical sports, speeding or smoking? Oh yes, and you don't even have a judiciary system. Yes so tell me what over sight there is to prevent your nation from executing innocent people? I guess that is why you are against the resolution, you just love to constantly kill your citizens for maybe having committed a crime regardless of it's severity."

[Xanthal]

"Gambling is illegal, therefore we arrest gamblers. We arrest gamblers, therefore their sentence must be life-imprisonment. Quite the house of cards you have built, a shame if I pulled one out. Alright enough fun. Just because something is illegal does not mean that those guilty receive the highest possible sentence. Often times there are other punishments; speeders are often not simply imprisoned, nor are jay-walkers and vandalisers. The punishment for a crime can easily be a hefty fine, not imprisonment. When making an argument, one should not build it on a faulty assumption that is rather ridiculous. Or is it that you assume that my country gives the highest possible punishment because your nation executes people for petty theft, playing contact or physical sports, speeding or smoking? Oh yes, and you don't even have a judiciary system. Yes so tell me what over sight there is to prevent your nation from executing innocent people? I guess that is why you are against the resolution, you just love to constantly kill your citizens for maybe having committed a crime regardless of it's severity."

You're right, your straw man is much more impressive than Nunavutialand's house of cards.

[Regalus]

Gentelman please! We must stop infighting until this unjust resolution is repealed or voted out. We are stronger United, let us not be divided.

[Imperium Anglorum]

If there are houses of cards anyplace, go report them.

[Arasi Luvasa]

"I am merely applying his logic to his own nation. Besides according to his nations law-books, the judiciary system was in fact banned."

Gentelman please! We must stop infighting until this unjust resolution is repealed or voted out. We are stronger United, let us not be divided.

OOC: you do realise I am FOR the resolution at vote right? I am against this repeal so who exactly am I supposed to be united with in your scenario? not you obviously.

If there are houses of cards anyplace, go report them.

OOC: my ambassador is not referring a legal house of cards, simply the metaphor from which the term is derived. He build a flimsy basis for how Arasi Luvasa is run.

Gambling is illegal= gamblers are arrested= gamblers are sentenced to life imprisonment.

Yeah, seems like a very flimsy structure to me, like one made out of playing-cards.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Aren't they facing life sentences though? Isn't that worse?"

Don't bother, I've been barking up that tree for weeks. The crowd pushing prohibition is positively deaf to any moral argument that doesn't presuppose any sort of life is preferable to dying.

"That isn't exactly true. Whether life in prison is better or worse is entirely subjective. It depends on the inmate. What doesn't depend on the inmate are the underlying components of incarceration: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Segregation from Society. Execution a poor deterrent, fails utterly at rehabilitation, and segregates from society no better than incarceration. As it fails to meet the underlying policy goals of incarceration, it serves no legitimate end. Where killing occurs without a legitimate end, it ought to be banned."

[Xanthal]

"That isn't exactly true. Whether life in prison is better or worse is entirely subjective. It depends on the inmate. What doesn't depend on the inmate are the underlying components of incarceration: Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Segregation from Society. Execution a poor deterrent, fails utterly at rehabilitation, and segregates from society no better than incarceration. As it fails to meet the underlying policy goals of incarceration, it serves no legitimate end. Where killing occurs without a legitimate end, it ought to be banned."

Incarceration- that is to say, the act of simply confining someone- doesn't serve the goal of rehabilitation any more than execution; in fact in most cases it's worse because segregation tends to encourage antisocial behavior, not diminish it. At least when you execute a criminal they don't become more of a threat. Whether putting someone in a cage or killing them serves as a greater deterrent I don't know; the data I've seen certainly doesn't suggest that either one is much use for that purpose as the countries with the highest rates of incarceration and/or execution rarely have low crime rates to match. I suppose there's some cause and effect arguments to be made there, but it's all rather academic to me as Xanthal doesn't regard deterrence as a primary goal of justice in any case. Segregation, as you say, is pretty much a wash: death presumably gets a slightly higher grade since being dead is harder to escape from than a cell, but I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point. Rather, I'll save my breath and fetch from the transcript my earlier comments on the workings of the Federation's judiciary, to follow.

First, if the case involves theft of some kind and restoration is possible, that will be done to whatever extent practical; that system is complicated in its own right and I only partially understand it, so since the subject at hand is the criminal and not the victim anyway I won't get too far into the weeds here. Next, an attempt is made to determine why the crime took place and- based on that understanding- whether there's a significant chance of the criminal offending again. If there is not, the criminal may simply be released, with or without conditions depending on the situation. If another infraction is considered likely, the next step is determining whether that likelihood can be decreased to an acceptable level without indefinite close supervision; if so, a program will be undertaken with that goal in mind, generally focused on some combination of behavioral modification (internal factors) and changing the convicted's situation (external factors). If successful, again the criminal will be released. If it's decided- either initially or after attempts at rehabilitation- that such a program is unlikely to yield the desired results, then a new phase of "sentencing" is entered.

This phase focuses on seeking long-term solutions with the understanding that the convicted's eventual release back into Xanthalian society as a free citizen is probably impractical or impossible. The court will make a good faith effort to find at least one supervised solution in which the person can be maintained safely within the Federation at a cost not greater than their expected productivity in that scenario; depending on the case there may be many potential options, few, or none. If there are no security concerns with doing so, the court will also attempt to find at least one other country willing to accept the person either as a free citizen or under supervision. If the convicted wishes to propose a sentence of their own this will also be considered. The options found by the judges to be acceptable will be presented to him, along with the option of a quick and painless death. Historically, and in the future WA willing, if no other acceptable options exist a sentence of death will be ordered.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Like treatment for a disease is reserved for those who have the disease, judicial remedy is reserved for the guilty. Just as a good hospital will prevent the spread of infection from a diseased patient, a good court will keep a proven criminal from causing further harm; no retribution required. Or, as the inscription in front of our courthouses puts it, "jąj olĭnsi tu dąι." "Justice looks to the future."

"That does not mean that the hospital will kill the patient though, merely separate them from the rest of society. Also are you referring to imprisonment or solitary confinement?"

[Xanthal]

"That does not mean that the hospital will kill the patient though, merely separate them from the rest of society. Also are you referring to imprisonment or solitary confinement?"

The quality of my analogies aside, that last bit was originally a response to another Ambassador, who questioned how a system could reserve judicial remedies to those found guilty of a crime without focusing on retribution. I could have played back the entire exchange, but I value the time of my fellow representatives so I clipped the recording. You're right though, given the lack of context it's probably clearer without that part included. I'll remove it for future reviewers. As it is part of the official record in any case, we can- naturally- discuss it further if you like. As to your question, I'm not sure which part you're referring to. Could you clarify please?

[Separatist Peoples]

Incarceration- that is to say, the act of simply confining someone- doesn't serve the goal of rehabilitation any more than execution; in fact in most cases it's worse because segregation tends to encourage antisocial behavior, not diminish it.

"Incarceration is almost always coupled with rehabilitative programs, ambassador. The effort rarely exists in a total vaccuum. Even penal work programs have rehabilitative effect: Prisoners learn to work in a legitimate trade or service."

At least when you execute a criminal they don't become more of a threat. Whether putting someone in a cage or killing them serves as a greater deterrent I don't know; the data I've seen certainly doesn't suggest that either one is much use for that purpose as the countries with the highest rates of incarceration and/or execution rarely have low crime rates to match.

"Making something a crime worthy of incarceration has a beneficial effect on crime rates, but not a perfect one. Escalating an act already punished by incarceration to execution does not have any notable effect."
OOC: I'm relying on real world data here, since people are generally people and we have no other evidence but what we can literally invent.

I suppose there's some cause and effect arguments to be made there, but it's all rather academic to me as Xanthal doesn't regard deterrence as a primary goal of justice in any case. Segregation, as you say, is pretty much a wash: death presumably gets a slightly higher grade since being dead is harder to escape from than a cell, but I'm not terribly interested in arguing the point.

"For the best, since you'd be getting into the worrisome question of proportionality when you've two options with comparable results, but one involves killing a person."

First, if the case involves theft of some kind and restoration is possible, that will be done to whatever extent practical; that system is complicated in its own right and I only partially understand it, so since the subject at hand is the criminal and not the victim anyway I won't get too far into the weeds here. Next, an attempt is made to determine why the crime took place and- based on that understanding- whether there's a significant chance of the criminal offending again. If there is not, the criminal may simply be released, with or without conditions depending on the situation. If another infraction is considered likely, the next step is determining whether that likelihood can be decreased to an acceptable level without indefinite close supervision; if so, a program will be undertaken with that goal in mind, generally focused on some combination of behavioral modification (internal factors) and changing the convicted's situation (external factors). If successful, again the criminal will be released. If it's decided- either initially or after attempts at rehabilitation- that such a program is unlikely to yield the desired results, then a new phase of "sentencing" is entered.

This phase focuses on seeking long-term solutions with the understanding that the convicted's eventual release back into Xanthalian society as a free citizen is probably impractical or impossible. The court will make a good faith effort to find at least one supervised solution in which the person can be maintained safely within the Federation at a cost not greater than their expected productivity in that scenario; depending on the case there may be many potential options, few, or none. If there are no security concerns with doing so, the court will also attempt to find at least one other country willing to accept the person either as a free citizen or under supervision. If the convicted wishes to propose a sentence of their own this will also be considered. The options found by the judges to be acceptable will be presented to him, along with the option of a quick and painless death. Historically, and in the future WA willing, if no other acceptable options exist a sentence of death will be ordered.

"Determining that an offender is irredeemable seems a great deal like claiming omnipotence and infallibility, things no court system can boast. Until you show me a system that can make no mistake, I cannot accept the defense that any individual is utterly beyond redemption."

[Xanthal]

Escalating an act already punished by incarceration to execution does not have any notable effect. ...[Y]ou'd be getting into the worrisome question of proportionality when you've two options with comparable results, but one involves killing a person. Determining that an offender is irredeemable seems a great deal like claiming omnipotence and infallibility, things no court system can boast. Until you show me a system that can make no mistake, I cannot accept the defense that any individual is utterly beyond redemption."

I've already addressed all of these points, Ambassador Bell; I've been on this train since the debate over the repeal of Crime and Punishment. Have you not been listening to me, or is it merely your intention to claim a win by default once I get tired of repeating myself? I warn you that strategy is unlikely to succeed, as I will simply drink this tasty beverage while I play some more recordings.

*Riley's voice emanates from the speaker system, playing from the record of earlier debate* The possibility of error is present in everything we do, as individuals or as part of a group or system; I believe we can agree at least upon that. My contention is with the bizarre understanding of certain parties that a lengthy prison sentence with no firm expectation that the condemned will emerge healthier or with a contribution to society outweighing his criminal tendencies is somehow more merciful than ending his life. Merciful to whom? To the individual who is now to suffer through this captivity with his rights and freedoms stripped away, for the rest of his life or only to be cut loose with prospects no better than they were when he began his sentence? Or to the society which now must live in apprehension of this individual's return? And should it be found, after some time, that he was not a criminal to begin with, what would have been the greater mercy- a quick and painless death, or the years or decades of confinement with their consequences to be forever lived with? I simply do not see this moral high ground you seem to assume that you hold.

[Separatist Peoples]

Escalating an act already punished by incarceration to execution does not have any notable effect. ...[Y]ou'd be getting into the worrisome question of proportionality when you've two options with comparable results, but one involves killing a person. Determining that an offender is irredeemable seems a great deal like claiming omnipotence and infallibility, things no court system can boast. Until you show me a system that can make no mistake, I cannot accept the defense that any individual is utterly beyond redemption."

I've already addressed all of these points, Ambassador Bell; I've been on this train since the debate over the repeal of Crime and Punishment. Have you not been listening to me, or is it merely your intention to claim a win by default once I get tired of repeating myself? I warn you that strategy is unlikely to succeed, as I will simply drink this tasty beverage while I play some more recordings.

*Riley's voice emanates from the speaker system, playing from the record of earlier debate* The possibility of error is present in everything we do, as individuals or as part of a group or system; I believe we can agree at least upon that. My contention is with the bizarre understanding of certain parties that a lengthy prison sentence with no firm expectation that the condemned will emerge healthier or with a contribution to society outweighing his criminal tendencies is somehow more merciful than ending his life. Merciful to whom? To the individual who is now to suffer through this captivity with his rights and freedoms stripped away, for the rest of his life or only to be cut loose with prospects no better than they were when he began his sentence? Or to the society which now must live in apprehension of this individual's return? And should it be found, after some time, that he was not a criminal to begin with, what would have been the greater mercy- a quick and painless death, or the years or decades of confinement with their consequences to be forever lived with? I simply do not see this moral high ground you seem to assume that you hold.

"I haven't responded before because it is an idiotic position. Obviously, the inevitable march of time is not within our control, and our power to stymie its ravages not yet complete. That does not mean that it is more cruel to incarcerate than it is to simply execute them. That you feel it is a greater mercy to simply grant a mercy kill to the victims of false imprisonment than to free them is shocking, and it leaves me wondering if your character is not what I had previously assessed.

"If the victims feel it is a greater harm to exist incarcerated than to walk free, I'm sure they can take that upon themselves to make that choice. Presuming you can make it for them is the height of arrogance."

[Xanthal]

I haven't responded before because it is an idiotic position. Obviously, the inevitable march of time is not within our control, and our power to stymie its ravages not yet complete. That does not mean that it is more cruel to incarcerate than it is to simply execute them. That you feel it is a greater mercy to simply grant a mercy kill to the victims of false imprisonment than to free them is shocking, and it leaves me wondering if your character is not what I had previously assessed.

That is not the choice and you know it. If we could know beforehand without the possibility of error whether or not our judgments were correct, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Life would, in fact, be very different far beyond the confines of the judicial system. However, we do not live in that reality. The choice is what to do with a person when the truth seems to be- beyond a reasonable doubt- that they are guilty. Which I have also spoken to.

*Riley presses the button again* I find the idea that financial compensation or anything else could be considered to "reverse" a prison term callously mercantile and morally craven, and the notion of retaining the ability to "make amends" (whatever that means) is an even weaker argument: we are to keep our prisoners alive as long as possible in the event that- should they ever be exonerated- we'll have the opportunity to apologize to them? Forgive me for saying so, but that sounds like a mercy for the jailers, not the jailed. Miscarriages of justice are always regrettable, and every effort should be made to prevent false convictions, but attempting to build a system of sentencing around the fantasy that the past can be undone is absurd.

*Riley stops the playback* And for the record, though I do my utmost to earn the respect of my counterparts, I am here first and foremost to represent my country and its people, not to please your sensibilities.

[Separatist Peoples]

I haven't responded before because it is an idiotic position. Obviously, the inevitable march of time is not within our control, and our power to stymie its ravages not yet complete. That does not mean that it is more cruel to incarcerate than it is to simply execute them. That you feel it is a greater mercy to simply grant a mercy kill to the victims of false imprisonment than to free them is shocking, and it leaves me wondering if your character is not what I had previously assessed.

That is not the choice and you know it. If we could know beforehand without the possibility of error whether or not our judgments were correct, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. Life would, in fact, be very different far beyond the confines of the judicial system. However, we do not live in that reality. The choice is what to do with a person when the truth seems to be- beyond a reasonable doubt- that they are guilty. Which I have also spoken to.

*Riley presses the button again* I find the idea that financial compensation or anything else could be considered to "reverse" a prison term callously mercantile and morally craven, and the notion of retaining the ability to "make amends" (whatever that means) is an even weaker argument: we are to keep our prisoners alive as long as possible in the event that- should they ever be exonerated- we'll have the opportunity to apologize to them? Forgive me for saying so, but that sounds like a mercy for the jailers, not the jailed. Miscarriages of justice are always regrettable, and every effort should be made to prevent false convictions, but attempting to build a system of sentencing around the fantasy that the past can be undone is absurd.

*Riley stops the playback* And for the record, though I do my utmost to earn the respect of my counterparts, I am here fist and foremost to represent my country and its people, not to please your sensibilities.

"Treating financial compensation as worse than the convenience of execution takes the cake in craven sensibilities, ambassador. Wring your hands all you'd like. You're choosing death for somebody not yourself. And without the benefit of exigent circumstances to force your hand, lest somebody somewhere propose the insane idea that execution is the state's self defense."

[Xanthal]

Treating financial compensation as worse than the convenience of execution takes the cake in craven sensibilities, ambassador. Wring your hands all you'd like. You're choosing death for somebody not yourself. And without the benefit of exigent circumstances to force your hand, lest somebody somewhere propose the insane idea that execution is the state's self defense.

Now you're just off in the weeds, Mister Bell. First of all, again, that's not the choice and you know it. Second, none of the proposals fielded in the course of this debate thus far have addressed state repression: a person can be unjustly imprisoned (or any number of other creative sentences) by a corrupt judiciary just as easily as they can be unjustly killed. Third, I am in fact a person: I get paid to stand here and represent my government, which is itself made up of various branches, divisions, jurisdictions, and individuals. I do not go back to my country and become a judge when we finish debate for the day.

As I've made clear, forced executions are the last resort of my country's sentencing procedure: the entire process up to the making of that choice has already played out, and the remaining options for dealing internally with the criminals who reach that point are to frappé their brains, pay the additional expense to put them through the misery of indefinite incarceration, or humanely execute them. I respect that your people may weigh the cost and benefit of keeping your criminals alive differently- frankly I find your own position on the matter ethically distasteful but I'm not the one trying to force everyone else to fall in line with my opinion here. I'm asking that my country's values be respected also because I believe I've made compelling arguments that they're worthy of respect. Clearly you disagree, and if thinking of us as morally bankrupt makes it easier for you to dismiss me I'm not foolish enough to think I can change your mind.

I have made every effort to engage this debate in good faith and been met consistently with straw men, red herrings, and ad hominem attacks. You say my country's position is idiotic, yet can't articulate any sound reason why. Moral outrage can take you a long way Ambassador, maybe even across the finish line, but don't try to make the abolitionist position about logic and reason: it isn't.

There are very real systemic perversions of justice manifest in many judiciaries across the known multiverse, and the Federation joins in the effort to quash them. We simply do not agree that the power of a state per se to sentence a criminal to death is such a perversion. If the World Assembly ultimately disagrees the Federation will carry on without, but the remedies that member judiciaries will seek in the absence of that option will be harmful to the cause of justice, not beneficial to it- certainly by our definition and likely by yours as well.