[PASSED] International Criminal Protocol

[Tinfect]

OOC:
This still exists.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:
This still exists.

OOC: stop bumping up dead threads I do support this however

[Falcania]

OOC:
This still exists.

OOC: stop bumping up dead threads I do support this however

It's her thread.

[Marxist Germany]

OOC: stop bumping up dead threads I do support this however

It's her thread.

DiD yOu JuSt AsSuMe ThEiR gEnDeR???

[Maowi]

It's her thread.

DiD yOu JuSt AsSuMe ThEiR gEnDeR???

No. Tinfect is female.

Actually, you assumed her gender in her repeal thread.

[Marxist Germany]

DiD yOu JuSt AsSuMe ThEiR gEnDeR???

No. Tinfect is female.

Actually, you assumed her gender in her repeal thread.

Rip

[Falcania]

It's her thread.

DiD yOu JuSt AsSuMe ThEiR gEnDeR???

Knock off that childish shit.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
There have been slight edits to the draft. It would be greatly appreciated if someone could provide a teardown of the draft as it stands. Instead of uh, ignoring it.

[Kenmoria]

“On a very picky note, your fifth ‘prohibits’ clause ends with a full stop rather than a comma, in contrast to every other clause. Also, it would be nice to see some line breaks added between active clauses.”

[Tinfect]

OOC:
I still don't feel that this is ready. If anyone has anything of substance to say, it would be appreciated.

[Araraukar]

OOC: I still don't feel that this is ready. If anyone has anything of substance to say, it would be appreciated.

OOC: I'll try to give it a glaring-at within the next 24 hours.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: The word ‘unusual’ in the sixth prohibiting clause seems rather worrying. Somebody licking your doorknob, as recently happened in the USA, is certainly unusual, but not deserving of capital punishment.)

[Wallenburg]

Defines solitary confinement as the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and/or prison staff,

Just "and", no need for "or".

Protective confinement as the severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates due to clear and present danger(s) to their life in the general prison population,

Same sort of thing, just "dangers". A singular danger doesn't work grammatically unless you insert an "a" into the sentence.

The holding of any prisoner in solitary confinement for any period greater than two days,
The holding of any prisoner in consecutive periods of solitary confinement,

I am concerned that member states might interrupt otherwise consecutive periods of solitary confinement with brief periods of interaction with staff. For instance, holding a prisoner in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day and having security observe them through an hour of rest.

The holding of any prisoners in inhumane conditions,
The holding of any prisoner in protective confinement without the informed consent of the prisoner, barring circumstances that render the prisoner legally unable to make such a decision,
The holding of any prisoner under the age of majority in solitary confinement.

(Sub?)clauses 1-5 can be condensed into a single clause or, if that would seem too lengthy, perhaps two. Five is excessive.

That Member-States provide to prisoners sentenced to capital punishment accessible legal counsel and supportfor any prisoner sentenced to Capital Punishment, including access to appeals and stays of execution,

Edits in blue/red. The current phrasing is redundant and structurally incorrect.

That prisoners subject to protective or solitary confinement be allowed regular contact with psychiatric staff,
That prisoners subject to protective confinement be allowed access to visitation as regularly allowed to prisoners,

These can be collapsed into one clause.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
There have been edits to the draft.

[Araraukar]

OOC post. Like two weeks late...

Annoyed by the insistence regarding passing yet another pointless non-compromise that will merely facilitate legal abuses and result in infinitely worse legislation being passed,

What is this a reference to? It sounds too snippy to open the proposal with.

Acknowledging prior attempts to ensure that the criminal justice systems of Member-States operate in a just and ethical manner,

Drop the random capital letters.

Dismayed by their failure to adequately provide protections from legal abuse and to provide closure and restitution to victims,

I feel like saying "source?" Also, I'm seeing no justification on why this is an international issue. Whether you go for "crime is international too" or "prisoners are people too", something like that should probably be included.

1. Capital punishment as the execution of a criminal convicted of a crime as sentence for said crime,

If this for some reason needs to be defined, why not "as the sentenced ending of the life of a convicted criminal by a person or persons acting on behalf of the state".

2. Solitary confinement as the complete or severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates and prison staff,

Maybe add "involuntary" before "isolation"? That would contrast it more against protective confinement.

Protective confinement as the severe isolation of prisoners from contact with other inmates due to clear and present dangers to their life in the general prison population,

...but not to protect others from them? (Like if a third party had both Velrahn and an Imperial citizen as prisoner, it'd make sense to put the Imperial citizen in isolation because it's more likely they'd try to kill the Velrahn than the other way round. )

Inhumane conditions as the refusal or withholding of necessary and healthy sustenance, medically or mentally necessary healthcare, severely confined or crowded conditions, or conditions inferior to those mandated for prisoners of war,

The holding of any prisoner under the age of majority in solitary confinement.

So children can be freely imprisoned and let to be murdered and abused (as they can't legally consent to protective confinement) by the general population?

The holding of any prisoner in solitary confinement for any period greater than three days, or in consecutive periods of solitary confinement,

Does consecutive here mean back-to-back?

The holding of any prisoner in protective confinement without the informed consent of the prisoner, barring circumstances that render the prisoner legally unable to make such a decision,

Children and mentally deficient people are unable to legally consent, so they can't be protected for their own good? That doesn't sound right. Maybe something about being able to hold them temporarily in protective custody until their legal guardian can be reached? That way you could keep them safe meanwhile.

The sentencing of any individual under the age of majority, or any individual deemed legally incompetent, to capital punishment,

Does this work for the moment the sentence is given or the moment the criminal deed was done or the moment the death penalty would be enacted? Because people can have birthdays or may sustain a brain injury that lowers their understanding of things below legal competence, between those important dates.

That Member-States provide to prisoners sentenced to capital punishment accessible legal counsel and support, including access to appeals and stays of execution,

To avoid the "incessant appeals" maybe add "unless such options have already been exhausted" at the end?

That, in the case of a pregnant individual being sentenced to capital punishment, that execution be stayed until such time as the prisoner is no longer pregnant,

To avoid forced abortions, maybe "either due to natural processes or voluntarily obtained abortion" at the end?

That protective solitary confinement be be utilized only when there exists a clear and present danger to holding the prisoner within the general prison area,

Still urging the addition "or the prisoner poses a clear and present danger to others".

That, once a prisoner has been subjected to protective confinement, all practical measures must be taken to allow their safe return to general prison populations as soon as possible.

These "practical measures" do not include locking up everyone else, I take it? Maybe change "practical" to "reasonable"?

[Wallenburg]

That, in the case of a pregnant individual being sentenced to capital punishment, that execution be stayed until such time as the prisoner is no longer pregnant,

To avoid forced abortions, maybe "either due to natural processes or voluntarily obtained abortion" at the end?

Already covered by GA#128 and GA#286.

[United Massachusetts]

Isn't the argument that we shouldn't execute a pregnant woman predicated on the notion that fetuses have inherent worth? This principle would seem to contradict GA 286.

[Araraukar]

Isn't the argument that we shouldn't execute a pregnant woman predicated on the notion that fetuses have inherent worth? This principle would seem to contradict GA 286.

OOC: You're mixing the notion of inherent worth with the individual's right to choose to have or not have an abortion.

Not forcing the ending of the pregnancy (by killing the host, in this case) is the point. If the pregnant individual wants the fetus to survive into a baby, they will not get an abortion, and the state should honor that decision by letting the pregnancy progress to its natural end. It's not that the fetus has worth as such, it's the pregnant individual's choice of trying to carry it to term that does.

(EDIT: I should point out that I don't personally agree with that - I don't think pregnancy should protect you from being executed, because when you did the horrible deed you got death penalty for, you forfeited your rights - but it makes more sense than UM's attempt to turn this into an abortion debate.)

[Tinfect]

Isn't the argument that we shouldn't execute a pregnant woman predicated on the notion that fetuses have inherent worth? This principle would seem to contradict GA 286.

OOC:
I will not have abortion debate in this thread. This draft makes no statement on abortion or the supposed worth of fetuses; it is entirely unreasonable to assume anything of the sort in a desperate bid to find illegality.

[...]
What is this a reference to? It sounds too snippy to open the proposal with.

OOC:
There was, at some point, some draft up for consideration that consisted almost entirely of 'it shall be left up to Member-States to determine the legal status of capital punishment'. I thought it was Auralia's replacement, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'm inclined to leave that bit of the preamble in regardless.

I feel like saying "source?" Also, I'm seeing no justification on why this is an international issue. Whether you go for "crime is international too" or "prisoners are people too", something like that should probably be included.

I mean, let's be real, this draft exists to prevent a WA-Wide Ban on Capital Punishment. And given the prior resolutions on the matter, I think it's pretty firmly established as grounds for WA interference.

If this for some reason needs to be defined, why not "as the sentenced ending of the life of a convicted criminal by a person or persons acting on behalf of the state".

You make a good point in that it doesn't really need to be defined.

Maybe add "involuntary" before "isolation"? That would contrast it more against protective confinement.

I don't feel that's necessary.

...but not to protect others from them? (Like if a third party had both Velrahn and an Imperial citizen as prisoner, it'd make sense to put the Imperial citizen in isolation because it's more likely they'd try to kill the Velrahn than the other way round.

I'll see what I can do about that, though it may make the clause in question cumbersome.

So children can be freely imprisoned and let to be murdered and abused (as they can't legally consent to protective confinement) by the general population?

I do believe that it is generally considered standard to hold children in special juvenile facilities; I'll see about making an emergency exception for informed legal consent in any case.

Does consecutive here mean back-to-back?

Yes.

Does this work for the moment the sentence is given or the moment the criminal deed was done or the moment the death penalty would be enacted? Because people can have birthdays or may sustain a brain injury that lowers their understanding of things below legal competence, between those important dates.

Barring a retrial, the decision and circumstances at the time of trial would take precedence here, I'd think.

To avoid the "incessant appeals" maybe add "unless such options have already been exhausted" at the end?

If Member-States allow infinite appeals without restriction, that's their own judicial nightmare.

To avoid forced abortions, maybe "either due to natural processes or voluntarily obtained abortion" at the end?

Will do.

These "practical measures" do not include locking up everyone else, I take it? Maybe change "practical" to "reasonable"?

Also, will do.

Thanks mate.

[Araraukar]

If Member-States allow infinite appeals without restriction, that's their own judicial nightmare.

OOC: But under the clauses of this particular proposal, can a person be executed before they have used up all available appeals? Like, do they only need to be allowed those appeals that they can squeeze into the time before their execution, or must the execution be delayed beyond "a reasonable date past sentencing" to process the appeals and then again not being able to execute them because the reasonable time has passed? This isn't an improvement at all!

[Aclion]

Isn't the argument that we shouldn't execute a pregnant woman predicated on the notion that fetuses have inherent worth? This principle would seem to contradict GA 286.

OOC:
I will not have abortion debate in this thread. This draft makes no statement on abortion or the supposed worth of fetuses; it is entirely unreasonable to assume anything of the sort in a desperate bid to find illegality.

If you are giving a stay of execution to pregnant women you are engaging in an institution based on the presumption that a fetus is a separate person with it's own rights, a presumption that is explicitly rejected by existing resolution.

(you are also discriminating on the basis of sex, as you are not mandating that pregnant men be given a stay of execution.)

[Tinfect]

OOC: But under the clauses of this particular proposal, can a person be executed before they have used up all available appeals?

OOC:
Not from my reading, unless, of course, they choose not to appeal; though I suppose it could stand to be made clearer that the time allotted for legal inquiries or appeals is to be held serially with the 30 day hold. I could also extend the thirty day hold, if you think that would help.

Like, do they only need to be allowed those appeals that they can squeeze into the time before their execution, or must the execution be delayed beyond "a reasonable date past sentencing" to process the appeals and then again not being able to execute them because the reasonable time has passed? This isn't an improvement at all!

This is a fair point; I'll try to rewrite that clause so that it doesn't institute a theoretical period in which execution becomes illegal.

If you are giving a stay of execution to pregnant women you are engaging in an institution based on the presumption that a fetus is a separate person with it's own rights, a presumption that is explicitly rejected by existing resolution.

If you genuinely think this, take it up with GenSec. I will not have abortion debate in my drafting thread.

(you are also discriminating on the basis of sex, as you are not mandating that pregnant men be given a stay of execution.)

No, I'm not. (And Gender and Sex aren't the same thing, even if both are constructed nonsense.)

That, in the case of a pregnant individual being sentenced to capital punishment, that execution be stayed until such time as the prisoner is no longer pregnant,

The clause uses entirely gender-neutral language. A pregnant trans man would still be given the stay. I assure you, I know how to dodge that particular problem.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If you are giving a stay of execution to pregnant women you are engaging in an institution based on the presumption that a fetus is a separate person with it's own rights, a presumption that is explicitly rejected by existing resolution.

If you genuinely think this, take it up with GenSec. I will not have abortion debate in my drafting thread.

OOC: Just to nip anything else in the bud, here, I can think of several reasons why a resolution might protect pregnant individuals from execution that have nothing to do with fetal personhood. Ara cited one such example above:

If the pregnant individual wants the fetus to survive into a baby, they will not get an abortion, and the state should honor that decision by letting the pregnancy progress to its natural end. It's not that the fetus has worth as such, it's the pregnant individual's choice of trying to carry it to term that does.

Or we could be interpreting the execution of a pregnant individual as a forced abortion under GAR #128, where the state has the power to execute a criminal, but not to abort that individual's pregnancy against their will (even criminals have rights).

Or we could be deciding that a fetus carried by a pregnant person sentenced to execution becomes the property or ward of its other parent, who assumes the carrying parent's right to veto its destruction by the state upon sentencing of the carrying parent.

As these examples show, there is no reason to believe the proposal at hand makes any claim, contradictory or otherwise, regarding World Assembly abortion jurisprudence. The topics are unrelated and I think this threadjack should end now. [/notamod]

[Spasibomasfreed]

Araraukar wrote:
So children can be freely imprisoned and let to be murdered and abused (as they can't legally consent to protective confinement) by the general population?

"The context of children respectively should be somewhat defined by the crime severity. As a minor from age 13 and up has hormones that can cause wild tendencies leading to such things as school shootings.
The parent(s) should hold some part of accountability as well. Proper home training could prevent such atrocities. Parent(s) or Legal Guardian(s) should be fully responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13 (see trial for minors definition below)

Minors on Felony Trial - Anyone under 18 is considered a minor any minor age 13 and up is held accountable as an adult for any felony action. Parent(s) are responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13, which at that point the child (still being a child until 18) would be fully responsible of upholding ethical and moral principles or will punished by the law and automatically tried in courts as an adult. Parent(s) are liable for all actions up until the child reaches 13 which at that point, the parent(s) are only liable if the parent(s) could have prevented the child's actions(proof of liability may be required by defendant attorney or prosecuting attorney depending on the severity of the case)."

This all is just an idea that I believe is important. If you don't agree, Toss it, there'd be no sense if we couldn't come to a bi-partisan agreement on the issue.

[Tinfect]

Araraukar wrote:
So children can be freely imprisoned and let to be murdered and abused (as they can't legally consent to protective confinement) by the general population?

"The context of children respectively should be somewhat defined by the crime severity. As a minor from age 13 and up has hormones that can cause wild tendencies leading to such things as school shootings.
The parents should hold some part of accountability as well. Proper home training could prevent such atrocities. Parent(s) or Legal Guardians should be fully responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13 (see trial for minors definition below)

Minors on Felony Trial - Anyone under 18 is considered a minor any minor age 13 and up is held accountable as an adult for any felony action. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children up until the child reaches 13, which at that point the child (still being a child until 18) would be fully responsible of upholding ethical and moral principles or will punished by the law and automatically tried in courts as an adult. Parents are liable for all actions up until the child reaches 13 which at which point the parent(s) are only liable if the parent(s) could have prevented the child's actions(proof of liability may be required by defendant attorney or prosecuting attorney depending on the severity of the case)."

This all is just an idea that I believe is important. If you don't agree, Toss it, there'd be no sense if we couldn't come to a bi-partisan agreement on the issue.

OOC:
Genuinely, what the fuck am I reading?
This is, not only, entirely outside the scope of the legislation, but it's utterly absurd, and the assumption that minors going through puberty are just naturally prone to being mass murderers is, quite possibly, the most ridiculous, intellectually decrepit, and downright silly, explanation for school shootings.