In addition to my increasingly tired refrain against the definition of execution as a punishment, Xanthal objects to the following provisions:
2. The primary consideration in sentencing should be the future costs and benefits to perpetrators, victims, and society, not the nature of the original offense.
4a. The WA does not recognize unborn rights in the matter of abortions; we fail to see why they should be recognized in the matter of executions.
4b/c. The competence of the convicted has no relevance to the appropriate remedy; either they can be safely reintroduced to society or they cannot. Indefinite imprisonment is a pointless and cruel alternative sentence to death.
8a. While I understand that some societies consider corpses to merit treatment beyond their status as large sacks of dead flesh, forcing that notion upon the rest of us- particularly by prescribing special treatment for these ignominious cases- is not desirable.
8b. What exactly is 'appropriate restitution' for the unjust taking of life, and to whom would such restitution be paid? This provision is meaningless at best and insulting to the value of sapient life at worst.
12. The use of blocking language here is uncalled for.
13. Don't spend twelve clauses laying out acceptable conditions for carrying out an execution and then play money games. Withholding WA funds for legitimate judicial practices only harms the ability of poor members to carry out justice fairly and effectively.
14. This clause does nothing: further legislation not explicitly blocked by language in past resolutions is already allowed by default.
