[DISCARDED] Repeal "Preventing the Execution of Innocents"

[Joushiki Nante Iranai]

Full support, will try to get my region's delegate to see this.

[Wallenburg]

Submit please.

we're only one damn page into the debate here! submitting is for page three!

No such standard exists. The draft is ready when the draft is ready.

[Visionary Union]

Its true that we voted for the passing of the resolution in question, we found it unsatisfying due to some of the factors mentioned above. Full support, in hopes for a better version of the current legislation.

[Auze]

While I disagree with capital punishment, I am in favour of this repeal. However, if possible, I would like to see a well-written replacement resolution on capital punishment as soon as reasonably possible.

We have one. Ban on Capital Punishment.

We had a better one before that idea came. Plus, it failed.

[Sciongrad]

We have one. Ban on Capital Punishment.

We had a better one before that idea came. Plus, it failed.

Only because you all voted the wrong way.

[Sefy the Great]

We had a better one before that idea came. Plus, it failed.

Only because you all voted the wrong way.

no, all of the people voting "the wrong way" were in the southern hemisphere. it is the right way down there because it is upside down there .

[Jocospor]

Absolute, unwavering support.

[Democratic Empire of Romania]

Against. Dictatorships would kill anyone anytime again.

[Sougra]

While I disagree with capital punishment, I am in favour of this repeal. However, if possible, I would like to see a well-written replacement resolution on capital punishment as soon as reasonably possible.

We have one. Ban on Capital Punishment.

If I were one to joke, I would've said that your resolution was not well-written. The problem with your resolution is that you attempted to do something, but went about it the wrong way. People here will almost undoubtedly vote against a full ban on capital punishment or immediately attempt to repeal it, even more so than this one. This is a battle that you may be able to win, but the tides are against you. The best thing possible is for the anti-death penalty side of the WA to draft a resolution which restricts capital punishment and protects innocent people from being executed, without the implications of this resolution (not having executions available for people who assassinated one person, hampering discovery, the whole population quota). I doubt most people like myself would have noticed the second one, but the first and third were definitely something that people couldn't get behind. It's an unfortunately flawed resolution with good intentions, therefore it should be repealed and replaced with something better than 'Ban on Capital Punishment'. You've already gone back to the drawing board, but my advice would be to be pragmatic about it. I mean, I doubt the WA at large would just stand by and let you pass a full ban on abortion, so a topic with a similar level of controversy, albeit a lot less, would end up the same.

Against. Dictatorships would kill anyone anytime again.

Not inherently. A repeal means that you repeal the resolution in question. If I'm not wrong, there are other resolutions regarding capital punishment that would make it so that dictators would not be able to kill off the Average Joe based off of a whim. If someone comes up with an adequate replacement for this resolution that you agree with, then you should put support behind that.

[Liberimery]

We have one. Ban on Capital Punishment.

If I were one to joke, I would've said that your resolution was not well-written. The problem with your resolution is that you attempted to do something, but went about it the wrong way. People here will almost undoubtedly vote against a full ban on capital punishment or immediately attempt to repeal it, even more so than this one. This is a battle that you may be able to win, but the tides are against you. The best thing possible is for the anti-death penalty side of the WA to draft a resolution which restricts capital punishment and protects innocent people from being executed, without the implications of this resolution (not having executions available for people who assassinated one person, hampering discovery, the whole population quota). I doubt most people like myself would have noticed the second one, but the first and third were definitely something that people couldn't get behind. It's an unfortunately flawed resolution with good intentions, therefore it should be repealed and replaced with something better than 'Ban on Capital Punishment'. You've already gone back to the drawing board, but my advice would be to be pragmatic about it. I mean, I doubt the WA at large would just stand by and let you pass a full ban on abortion, so a topic with a similar level of controversy, albeit a lot less, would end up the same.

Against. Dictatorships would kill anyone anytime again.

Not inherently. A repeal means that you repeal the resolution in question. If I'm not wrong, there are other resolutions regarding capital punishment that would make it so that dictators would not be able to kill off the Average Joe based off of a whim. If someone comes up with an adequate replacement for this resolution that you agree with, then you should put support behind that.

Like the various due processes resolutions that the target resolution might itself be in conflict with.

[Sougra]

Like the various due processes resolutions that the target resolution might itself be in conflict with.

Really? Which ones? If there were inconsistencies, than I would've assumed that the GA Secretariats would've noticed it, although they're not infallible. If they're strong cases, than they could be added to the repeal to further bring it credibility. The thing I really want to see is a replacement resolution ready to go if this one ends up passing.

[Eastern Don Mard]

Support.

[Wallenburg]

Like the various due processes resolutions that the target resolution might itself be in conflict with.

Really? Which ones? If there were inconsistencies, than I would've assumed that the GA Secretariats would've noticed it, although they're not infallible. If they're string cases, than they could be added to the repeal to further bring it credibility.

^ This. If you think the target contradicts other resolutions, you should demonstrate such contradictions, so that they can be addressed in this repeal.

[The Rhenish League]

"Nothing more to say about it. Full support!"

[Zone 4]

"Glad to see this. I was starting to lose hope that this would ever be repealed."

[New Bremerton]

Full support

[Liberimery]

Like the various due processes resolutions that the target resolution might itself be in conflict with.

Really? Which ones? If there were inconsistencies, than I would've assumed that the GA Secretariats would've noticed it, although they're not infallible. If they're strong cases, than they could be added to the repeal to further bring it credibility. The thing I really want to see is a replacement resolution ready to go if this one ends up passing.

GAR#198, which prevents Multiple Trials, aka, Double Jeopardy in criminal trials in member states. Specifically article 6 reads:

FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on retrials.

Initial criminal trials typically constitutes to types of questions: Questions of Fact and Question Law (OOC: In common law jurisdictions like the US and most Commonwealth countries the former is the question answered by the jury where as the later is answered by the judge. In Civil Law nations, like most of continental Europe, these are both answered by a judge). An appeal is strictly a matter of re-litigation of Questions of Law only.

Double Jeopardy specifically bans holding an individual from engaging in cases based on Questions of the same facts twice. As the committee created by the target resolution retains forensics experts to independently find matters of fact in the case, thus could constitute as a legal proceeding against an individual as a Question of Fact litigation, which member nations are not allowed to engage in.

Furthermore member states may not initiate appeals in criminal cases to prevent Double Jeopardy. The logic is if the Prosecutor wins a criminal trial, they would believe that the matter of law was upheld and if they lost, they aren't allowed to pursue the matter further. Or from the other point of view, the reasonable Defendant would not want to appeal a case in his or her favor but it's worth it if they are found guilty.

This would then put the state into violation of Gar#197 which prevents extradition to nations to circumvent a civil or political right of the accused. As the WA is not claim jurisdiction to prosecute a crime in a member state, they would be starting a second trial on the guilty party which is a violation of the guilty' civil rights. This is a conflict because in order to uphold the target Resolution, a state must violate GAR#197 and Gar#198 OR violate the target resolution. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(OOC: Hi again... so yeah, sorry for delaying this. It's a lot to digest and very legally complex, so I'm expecting some questions. I'm happy to answer, but it might be delayed. Given that the target resolution was rushed, its more likely no one an honest mistake on oversight and not deliberate.)

[Sougra]

Really? Which ones? If there were inconsistencies, than I would've assumed that the GA Secretariats would've noticed it, although they're not infallible. If they're strong cases, than they could be added to the repeal to further bring it credibility. The thing I really want to see is a replacement resolution ready to go if this one ends up passing.

GAR#198, which prevents Multiple Trials, aka, Double Jeopardy in criminal trials in member states. Specifically article 6 reads:

FORBIDS the filing of new criminal complaints on an individual based upon substantially the same facts as a previously concluded trial for the purpose of circumventing restrictions on retrials.

Initial criminal trials typically constitutes to types of questions: Questions of Fact and Question Law (OOC: In common law jurisdictions like the US and most Commonwealth countries the former is the question answered by the jury where as the later is answered by the judge. In Civil Law nations, like most of continental Europe, these are both answered by a judge). An appeal is strictly a matter of re-litigation of Questions of Law only.

Double Jeopardy specifically bans holding an individual from engaging in cases based on Questions of the same facts twice. As the committee created by the target resolution retains forensics experts to independently find matters of fact in the case, thus could constitute as a legal proceeding against an individual as a Question of Fact litigation, which member nations are not allowed to engage in.

Furthermore member states may not initiate appeals in criminal cases to prevent Double Jeopardy. The logic is if the Prosecutor wins a criminal trial, they would believe that the matter of law was upheld and if they lost, they aren't allowed to pursue the matter further. Or from the other point of view, the reasonable Defendant would not want to appeal a case in his or her favor but it's worth it if they are found guilty.

This would then put the state into violation of Gar#197 which prevents extradition to nations to circumvent a civil or political right of the accused. As the WA is not claim jurisdiction to prosecute a crime in a member state, they would be starting a second trial on the guilty party which is a violation of the guilty' civil rights. This is a conflict because in order to uphold the target Resolution, a state must violate GAR#197 and Gar#198 OR violate the target resolution. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(OOC: Hi again... so yeah, sorry for delaying this. It's a lot to digest and very legally complex, so I'm expecting some questions. I'm happy to answer, but it might be delayed. Given that the target resolution was rushed, its more likely no one an honest mistake on oversight and not deliberate.)

Thank you for answering. It is a bit hard to digest, and I think it would've served you better if you put it into layman's terms. As for if what you're saying, which I have somewhat of an understanding of, I'd have to wait for someone from GenSec or someone with legal knowledge to decide whether it does violate it or not.

[Liberimery]

GAR#198, which prevents Multiple Trials, aka, Double Jeopardy in criminal trials in member states. Specifically article 6 reads:




Initial criminal trials typically constitutes to types of questions: Questions of Fact and Question Law (OOC: In common law jurisdictions like the US and most Commonwealth countries the former is the question answered by the jury where as the later is answered by the judge. In Civil Law nations, like most of continental Europe, these are both answered by a judge). An appeal is strictly a matter of re-litigation of Questions of Law only.

Double Jeopardy specifically bans holding an individual from engaging in cases based on Questions of the same facts twice. As the committee created by the target resolution retains forensics experts to independently find matters of fact in the case, thus could constitute as a legal proceeding against an individual as a Question of Fact litigation, which member nations are not allowed to engage in.

Furthermore member states may not initiate appeals in criminal cases to prevent Double Jeopardy. The logic is if the Prosecutor wins a criminal trial, they would believe that the matter of law was upheld and if they lost, they aren't allowed to pursue the matter further. Or from the other point of view, the reasonable Defendant would not want to appeal a case in his or her favor but it's worth it if they are found guilty.

This would then put the state into violation of Gar#197 which prevents extradition to nations to circumvent a civil or political right of the accused. As the WA is not claim jurisdiction to prosecute a crime in a member state, they would be starting a second trial on the guilty party which is a violation of the guilty' civil rights. This is a conflict because in order to uphold the target Resolution, a state must violate GAR#197 and Gar#198 OR violate the target resolution. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

(OOC: Hi again... so yeah, sorry for delaying this. It's a lot to digest and very legally complex, so I'm expecting some questions. I'm happy to answer, but it might be delayed. Given that the target resolution was rushed, its more likely no one an honest mistake on oversight and not deliberate.)

Thank you for answering. It is a bit hard to digest, and I think it would've served you better if you put it into layman's terms. As for if what you're saying, which I have somewhat of an understanding of, I'd have to wait for someone from GenSec or someone with legal knowledge to decide whether it does violate it or not.

((OOC: TL;DR: Cannot try someone twice for the same crime. A trial for crime includes presenting evidence. Appeals do not introduce new evidence. Appeals cannot be initiated by the prosecution.))

[Sougra]

((OOC: TL;DR: Cannot try someone twice for the same crime. A trial for crime includes presenting evidence. Appeals do not introduce new evidence. Appeals cannot be initiated by the prosecution.))

I do know what double jeopardy is, but it's good that you clarified it in case anyone else didn't. As for the target resolution, it seems 4g and/or 5b may go against the idea of double jeopardy or how appeals are normally made. The other resolution you're citing does use the word "substantially" which may be a point of contention.

[Kiravian WA Mission]

"Full support for this repeal. Let us be rid of GA #443."

[Liberimery]

((OOC: TL;DR: Cannot try someone twice for the same crime. A trial for crime includes presenting evidence. Appeals do not introduce new evidence. Appeals cannot be initiated by the prosecution.))

I do know what double jeopardy is, but it's good that you clarified it in case anyone else didn't. As for the target resolution, it seems 4g and/or 5b may go against the idea of double jeopardy or how appeals are normally made. The other resolution you're citing does use the word "substantially" which may be a point of contention.

I was looking at Article 2 of target, which states that the Division will maintain forensics labs for independent verification of evidence. That is fact finding.

[Liberimery]

(Um, did this die?)

[Auralia]

(Um, did this die?)

No.

[United Massachusetts]

(Um, did this die?)

No.

My condolences.