NationStates

Tinfect wrote:OOC:
Planning to submit this soon, since, according to the lack of responses besides statements of support and opposition, this is apparently a perfect and flawless draft.

Iciaros wrote:

"While I personally have my reservations about the death penalty, my Empress has instructed me to vote for this repeal, and I will support it regardless of my personal convictions. Nonetheless, while I understand that you have very strong views on the subject that are by no means invalid, I should note that the forceful moral arguments in the preamble of this repeal proposal may not sit well with some, such as the ambassador from Battlion, and that a more neutral stance on the death penalty may make this repeal more palatable and allow it to gather more general support at vote...

(*aide whispers*)

"... though such neutral language may not have worked in repeal attempts past, I do wonder whether such failures were because or in spite of such language. Nevertheless, of course, the language of the proposal is your prerogative, Ambassador, and no doubt you have more experience here than I.

"As a side note, I would like to address the reasoning put forth in sub-clause 4 of your proposal. My understanding is that the admissibility of evidence does not ipso facto mean that all evidence will be accorded equal and persuasive weight. Therefore, though the target resolution may allow the admission of "unverifiable, nonexistent, or outright fabricated evidence", it does not mandate that the courts treat said evidence as accurate or true. Rules of admissibility exist in many jurisdictions, at least in significant part, to prevent the court from being swamped with irrelevant evidence and thus delaying a trial. These rules do not mandate that courts give a certain weight to evidence (which is normally an inquiry conducted during a trial after evidence has been submitted and accepted). As a result, it appears to me that the reasoning of this sub-clause is somewhat flawed. If the Ambassador could clarify her intent with regards to this, I would greatly appreciate it."

EDIT:

"Apologies, Ambassador, it completely slipped my mind that many countries use a jury system, and in these instances it may be far truer to say that fallible evidence admitted may unduly sway the factual decision-making of the laypeople comprising the jury, who may not have as great a heed to the problems that come with unreliable evidence. That said, I would still draw a distinction between this possibility and the wording of your sub-clause, which is that the target resolution 'requires' such evidence to be treated as true. My apologies for the oversight, and I do hope this observation may still be of use to you."

Auze wrote:I kinda like Auralia's reserved replacement better, but I support any attempt to repeal this law.

Iciaros wrote:(OOC: I believe I raised a concern about your 'reliability of evidence' clause, do you think it is something that needs to be considered?)

Iciaros wrote:

"While I personally have my reservations about the death penalty, my Empress has instructed me to vote for this repeal, and I will support it regardless of my personal convictions. Nonetheless, while I understand that you have very strong views on the subject that are by no means invalid, I should note that the forceful moral arguments in the preamble of this repeal proposal may not sit well with some, such as the ambassador from Battlion, and that a more neutral stance on the death penalty may make this repeal more palatable and allow it to gather more general support at vote...

(*aide whispers*)

"... though such neutral language may not have worked in repeal attempts past, I do wonder whether such failures were because or in spite of such language. Nevertheless, of course, the language of the proposal is your prerogative, Ambassador, and no doubt you have more experience here than I.

"As a side note, I would like to address the reasoning put forth in sub-clause 4 of your proposal. My understanding is that the admissibility of evidence does not ipso facto mean that all evidence will be accorded equal and persuasive weight. Therefore, though the target resolution may allow the admission of "unverifiable, nonexistent, or outright fabricated evidence", it does not mandate that the courts treat said evidence as accurate or true. Rules of admissibility exist in many jurisdictions, at least in significant part, to prevent the court from being swamped with irrelevant evidence and thus delaying a trial. These rules do not mandate that courts give a certain weight to evidence (which is normally an inquiry conducted during a trial after evidence has been submitted and accepted). As a result, it appears to me that the reasoning of this sub-clause is somewhat flawed. If the Ambassador could clarify her intent with regards to this, I would greatly appreciate it."

EDIT:

"Apologies, Ambassador, it completely slipped my mind that many countries use a jury system, and in these instances it may be far truer to say that fallible evidence admitted may unduly sway the factual decision-making of the laypeople comprising the jury, who may not have as great a heed to the problems that come with unreliable evidence. That said, I would still draw a distinction between this possibility and the wording of your sub-clause, which is that the target resolution 'requires' such evidence to be treated as true. My apologies for the oversight, and I do hope this observation may still be of use to you."

Lusane wrote:Strong Opposition.

Tinfect wrote:

Lusane wrote:Strong Opposition.

OOC:
Would you care to explain why, or are you merely going to hit-and-run oppose like 90% of the opposition?

Lusane wrote:Your first statement, where you state the "unwanted intrusion into member-state criminal justice systems" in conjunction with where you mentioned extradition. GA #2, Article 2 states: Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein. When extraditing a person, that person is not in your jurisdiction, or your territory. Therefore is not in the purview of your criminal justice system.

Lusane wrote:Further, GA #147 declares: "DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established.", correct me if I am missing something, but; I am not seeing where your state is in compliance with this provision.

Lusane wrote:You state in your draft that: "the target resolution requires bureaucratic delay of criminal proceedings that serve specifically to prevent any capital punishment from being carried out under its mandates", however; the reasoning for delaying the actual "carrying-out" of the sentence, is to allow the accused enough time to appeal their sentence of execution.

Lusane wrote:I would also like to state that it is the authority of the WA to protect citizens in member nations.

Tinfect wrote:

Lusane wrote:Your first statement, where you state the "unwanted intrusion into member-state criminal justice systems" in conjunction with where you mentioned extradition. GA #2, Article 2 states: Every WA Member State has the right to exercise jurisdiction over its territory and over all persons and things therein. When extraditing a person, that person is not in your jurisdiction, or your territory. Therefore is not in the purview of your criminal justice system.

OOC:
I'll be real, this is incoherent. 'Uneeded and Unwanted intrusion' is a bit of rhetoric, the Preamble is the place for such things. If you have the power to extradite someone, they would have to be within your jurisdiction. You can't call it extradition if you grab them up from another country and take them to some other random country.

Lusane wrote:Further, GA #147 declares: "DECLARES that persons inside the jurisdiction of a World Assembly Member State may not be extradited to another World Assembly Member State, in the absence of a treaty governing the terms of extradition or a national law governing the terms of extradition to nations with whom no treaty has been established.", correct me if I am missing something, but; I am not seeing where your state is in compliance with this provision.

ICly, the Imperium doesn't extradite anyone, period. Legally speaking, the Imperium considers Imperial courts the only legitimate and unbiased courts; any criminals would therefore have to be tried in them, rather than in foreign courts. This extends to Imperial citizens in foreign countries, where the Imperium demands extradition for trial in the Imperium for any crimes committed in a foreign state.

Lusane wrote:You state in your draft that: "the target resolution requires bureaucratic delay of criminal proceedings that serve specifically to prevent any capital punishment from being carried out under its mandates", however; the reasoning for delaying the actual "carrying-out" of the sentence, is to allow the accused enough time to appeal their sentence of execution.

Yeah, the resolution can give whatever reasoning it wants, one of the fundamental points of the repeal is that the text of the target resolution is intentionally misleading.

Lusane wrote:I would also like to state that it is the authority of the WA to protect citizens in member nations.

And I would argue that Capital Punishment does protect citizens, by removing exceptionally horrific criminal from society, permanently.

Tinfect wrote:-snip-

Lusane wrote:I would also like to state that it is the authority of the WA to protect citizens in member nations.

And I would argue that Capital Punishment does protect citizens, by removing exceptionally horrific criminal from society, permanently.

Astoriya wrote:And you'd be instantly challenged by me, because it patently does not protect citizens, as it's rather easy to get the wrong guy, here's an example.
Even at that, keeping them behind bars would not only be cheaper than executing them, but gives people even more protection from potential breakouts (especially in maximum security prisons).

Astoriya wrote:And you'd be instantly challenged by me, because it patently does not protect citizens, as it's rather easy to get the wrong guy, here's an example.

Astoriya wrote:Even at that, keeping them behind bars would not only be cheaper than executing them,

Astoriya wrote:but gives people even more protection from potential breakouts (especially in maximum security prisons).

Tinfect wrote:Understanding that despite the auspices of compromise, the target resolution requires bureaucratic delay of criminal proceedings that serve specifically to prevent any capital punishment from being carried out under its mandates, including:

1. Prohibiting the retention of documents which are required by the resolution to determine a lack of disqualifying irregularities,

Tinfect wrote:Understanding...

1. ...
2. ...
3. Allowing the defense in a criminal case wherein capital punishment is being considered to indefinitely delay the proceedings until such time that capital punishment becomes illegal...

Tinfect wrote:-

That demonstrates a problem with the legal system; it seems that a lot of evidence was excluded or manipulated and the trial effectively came down to 'he-said she-said'. That's an example of manipulation of evidence and a corrupted court - not an example of the evils of capital punishment.

-

This is just patently false - the only reason it could even be conceived of as true, is that lethal injection, a method of execution which, I, for the record, oppose, is obscenely expensive.

-

... What? Life in prison is rather more of a risk of breakout than no longer being alive.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:"One thought, Ambassador, about the clause beginning 'Disgusted...' - it kind of gives the game away, doesn't it? If the target really were a good faith effort to limit capital punishment to only those cases where it's clear death is necessary and just, why limit extradition in this way? It would be enough to prohibit extradition to states that are in violation of the protocols laid out here, but on top of that we are outlawing criminals and suspects from being given to any state with capital punishment, regardless of WA membership or compliance status! That's a clear indication that the entire point is to abolish capital punishment by stealth - the additional clause would be unnecessary if the target were simply about the openly stated mandates."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote: The target doesn't actually appear to me to prevent retention of such documents by member states, only by the committee itself. So while it's wrong that nobody may keep such documents, the committee is willfully keeping itself from a clear understanding of its own mandate.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:I know I made a similar accusation in my repeal draft, but now I'm not quite seeing it. Can you explain why it's impossible for the committee carry out its examinations under Clause 5, and then certify the case record and sign off on all the stuff in Clause 8?

Member nations, when prosecuting capital cases, shall:
provide the defence ample time, no less than one year, to review and examine that evidence,

In all cases where a capital sentence is issued, before it is carried out,
member nations shall serially provide the Division and all counsel assigned or associated with a case, six months to discover, examine, and verify exculpatory evidence which could exonerate the defendant,

No member nation shall carry out a capital sentence on any person which has not had their case record certified by the Division within the last year.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:Good luck!

Orveila wrote:"Orveila will support any resolution that repeals unnecessary World Assembly intrusion into internal criminal justice. Capital punishment, while not outlawed, is hardly used within our borders but that choice is our prerogative as a sovereign nation-state."

Widowed Land wrote:

Orveila wrote:"Orveila will support any resolution that repeals unnecessary World Assembly intrusion into internal criminal justice. Capital punishment, while not outlawed, is hardly used within our borders but that choice is our prerogative as a sovereign nation-state."

"I can't argue with that, but this resolution eliminates or limits chances of innocents getting capital punishment. I don't think that it is unnecessary, even for nations like Widowed Land or Orveila, where we don't use that kind of punishment often"

Marxist Germany wrote:

Widowed Land wrote:
"I can't argue with that, but this resolution eliminates or limits chances of innocents getting capital punishment. I don't think that it is unnecessary, even for nations like Widowed Land or Orveila, where we don't use that kind of punishment often"

"Only killing over 2 people and high treason constituted a death sentence in here, before the target passed."