DRAFT: Criminalizing Murder

[Separatist Peoples]

All of my proposals have affected procedure in that category, as I recall. I created the category.

OOC: Then maybe you can tell me what the stat effects are? And if anything has passed in the category/AoE yet?

OOC: Stats are secret. You know that.

It clearly enforces a limitation on private individual action.

Actually, it doesn't (as of draft 2). It specifically regulates the actions of member nations and their handling of the crime in the criminal justice system. (And tries to say combatants dying in a war doesn't count as murder.)

OOC: Of an act that specifically applies to criminal activity. Which is an individual limitation. Not buying it.

[Sanctaria]

OOC: Then maybe you can tell me what the stat effects are? And if anything has passed in the category/AoE yet?

OOC: Stats are secret. You know that.

Just to confirm that I coded this category and Sep doesn't know the stats.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: Stats are secret. You know that.

Just to confirm that I coded this category and Sep doesn't know the stats.

OOC: Super duper don't know. I literally cannot even guess.

[Potted Plants United]

OOC: Stats are secret. You know that.

OOC: ...they are? Since when? We use stat effects as an excuse for the categories' existence all the time. Environmental resolution passing is going to push up the environment-related stats and lower the industrial ones. Advancement of Industry works the opposite way. I don't mean the detailed percentages and which of all the stats available are touched, but I mean the general effect. What does "regulation" mean in terms of stats?

Or perhaps I'm asking it the wrong way around; nevermind the actual gameside stats, but what were the effects you intended, when making the category/AoE?

And are there any examples that passed for that AoE? None are listed in the rules, but we all know that can take a while to get updated.

EDIT: Just realized I'm on wrong account, but... meh. I'll let the post stay as PPU's.

[Sanctaria]

OOC: Stats are secret. You know that.

OOC: ...they are? Since when? We use stat effects as an excuse for the categories' existence all the time. Environmental resolution passing is going to push up the environment-related stats and lower the industrial ones. Advancement of Industry works the opposite way. I don't mean the detailed percentages and which of all the stats available are touched, but I mean the general effect. What does "regulation" mean in terms of stats?

Or perhaps I'm asking it the wrong way around; nevermind the actual gameside stats, but what were the effects you intended, when making the category/AoE?

And are there any examples that passed for that AoE? None are listed in the rules, but we all know that can take a while to get updated.

EDIT: Just realized I'm on wrong account, but... meh. I'll let the post stay as PPU's.

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

[Potted Plants United]

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

OOC: Thank you, that makes more sense than the description in the rules post, and actually Sep's argument against it being the right one for this proposal makes sense now too. I'll probably go back to MD, or do some rewriting when I sort out draft 3 anyway.

[Maowi]

OOC: (For future reference, you can find passed resolutions by category here.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Based on the intent of the category that Sep gave us, the general effect for Legal Regulation is, more or less, bad for your economy (more barriers for the legal industry), good for civil rights (less restrictions on individuals being able to sue/take up litigation).

OOC: Thank you, that makes more sense than the description in the rules post, and actually Sep's argument against it being the right one for this proposal makes sense now too. I'll probably go back to MD, or do some rewriting when I sort out draft 3 anyway.

Ooc: sorry, I wasnt trying to be difficult.

[Araraukar]

OOC: (For future reference, you can find passed resolutions by category here.)

OOC: It hasn't been updated since summer, though.

Ooc: sorry, I wasnt trying to be difficult.

OOC: I didn't think you were being difficult on purpose, we just had a communication breakdown.

---

OOC: Draft 3 is up. Some more preambling was added. I switched category back to MD, but rather than downgrade to Mild, added the new clause 6 to beef it up. It also cements it into the category better, as such national laws necessarily dictate individuals' actions' lawfulness. Still, opinions welcomed.

I think the updated language of the last clause also fixes the brain fart in that one...

Watching CSI when thinking about murder legislation seems to be helpful in clearing one's thoughts.

[Maowi]

OOC:

5. Allows member nations to treat some murders as more heinous crimes than others, as long as it is applied evenly on all similar cases,

You were just missing an "as" there.

[Araraukar]

OOC:

5. Allows member nations to treat some murders as more heinous crimes than others, as long as it is applied evenly on all similar cases,

You were just missing an "as" there.

OOC: Fixed.

[Liberimery]

Clause six opens up a loophole for genocide to any member state who’s government decides a minority population is no longer worth the trouble.

Perhaps it hasn’t been spelled out to you why this proposal is toothless: No one is debating that the definition of Murder is an illegal homicide. That’s literally all there is to the crime. It’s toothless because you’re failing to define what illegal homicide is and I can assure that line is going to be different for every single Member state. What if a member says “it’s legal to kill anyone with green eyes but illegal to kill someone with blue eyes because name a reason.” This proposal does jack for the Green eye minority’s right to life. You are also back dooring in permission to ban abortions (which we have a proposal against) and banning capital punishment which is de facto allowed (De Jure it’s a huge mess has to boggle the mind as to how it didn’t trip
The Gen. Sec on all the contradictions with existing law it had in it.).


We do have resolutions that say these manners of killing are illegal already. If you have a specific type of way people are killing people you want to ban that isn’t, lay it on me. But this is a law that says hey, killing isn’t right all the time. Figure it out for yourselves.

[Araraukar]

Clause six opens up a loophole for genocide to any member state who’s government decides a minority population is no longer worth the trouble.

OOC: GA 38, Convention Against Genocide.

No one is debating that the definition of Murder is an illegal homicide. That’s literally all there is to the crime. It’s toothless because you’re failing to define what illegal homicide is and I can assure that line is going to be different for every single Member state. What if a member says “it’s legal to kill anyone with green eyes but illegal to kill someone with blue eyes because name a reason.” This proposal does jack for the Green eye minority’s right to life. You are also back dooring in permission to ban abortions (which we have a proposal against) and banning capital punishment which is de facto allowed (De Jure it’s a huge mess has to boggle the mind as to how it didn’t trip
The Gen. Sec on all the contradictions with existing law it had in it.).

I think you've missed this entirely in the proposal:

Thus, within the restrictions and allowances set by previously passed and future World Assembly resolutions, hereby;

With that line in there, nothing in the proposal contradicts previous resolutions, and no future resolutions setting more limits on what counts as a legal killing, will contradict this one. Both approaches have precedents.

We do have resolutions that say these manners of killing are illegal already.

Point to me where in an already existing resolution does it say that murder is illegal. The whole point is that there isn't one. There are certain very special cases where killing another individual is already restricted by WA, in some rare cases it has already been criminalized. But just because you ban something, or even make it illegal, doesn't mean that it gets treated as a serious crime in prosecution and sentencing. There are people who post here every now and then, who claim that murder isn't illegal in their nation (other than the specific cases outlined by WA law), but few claim to actually have laws saying it's legal to kill others. At the very least this proposal would require them to actually make those laws reality.

If you have a specific type of way people are killing people you want to ban that isn’t, lay it on me. But this is a law that says hey, killing isn’t right all the time. Figure it out for yourselves.

No, it says that illegal killings must be treated as serious crimes and every type of legal killing must have at least a national law detailing the limits and restrictions for them to remain legal after this goes into effect. If you're unable to figure out any non-WA-based laws for legal killings, then you're restricted to what WA laws define as legal ways to kill someone. Which are not many, considering that combatant deaths in a war are not part of this proposal's domain. Without national laws in effect, you couldn't even have police kill dangerous crooks in the line of duty and get away with it (unless I've missed a resolution saying otherwise, in which case, link please!), so please don't say that my proposal has no teeth. (The comments on that were given to first draft anyway, which had a somewhat different approach.)

[Liberimery]

Okay. Let’s say my nation says it’s not murder to kill someone with green eyes. It’s not genocide, because my government isn’t systematically killing people. It’s not murder, because my government says it isn’t. And it’s not violating this resolution, because it doesn’t violate existing WA legislation (in so far as I am aware, more on this in a moment) and if you kill someone with blue eyes we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.


Now, if you want to argue my example is in violation of another WA law, then that’s fine by me. This is redundant, as we have a law defining an illegal homicide, specifically the illegal aspect. Otherwise I a nation can not apply this law unequally to unprotected minorities and this doesn’t do a damn to protect their lives. The WA has no police power over citizens of member nations. If you don’t have a list of illegal homicides, then it’s my rules not yours that says who I’m going to prosecute.

OOC: I also happen to live in a state with no legal definition of murder. I still can’t go around killing people. And it’s not the only US state like that.

[Kenmoria]

Okay. Let’s say my nation says it’s not murder to kill someone with green eyes. It’s not genocide, because my government isn’t systematically killing people. It’s not murder, because my government says it isn’t. And it’s not violating this resolution, because it doesn’t violate existing WA legislation (in so far as I am aware, more on this in a moment) and if you kill someone with blue eyes we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

(OOC: The example given would fall under CoCR, since you would be having a different law for a different group of people without a practical reason.)

[Araraukar]

Okay. Let’s say my nation says it’s not murder to kill someone with green eyes. It’s not genocide, because my government isn’t systematically killing people. It’s not murder, because my government says it isn’t. And it’s not violating this resolution, because it doesn’t violate existing WA legislation (in so far as I am aware, more on this in a moment) and if you kill someone with blue eyes we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law.

OOC: Like Kenmoria said, CoCR.

This is redundant, as we have a law defining an illegal homicide, specifically the illegal aspect.

I keep asking for you to provide that resolution's number.

OOC: I also happen to live in a state with no legal definition of murder. I still can’t go around killing people. And it’s not the only US state like that.

One of these days I'm going to count the number of WA resolutions the USA is in violation with, but at a quick think maybe half of them. And if it was in the WA, your RL nation would need to MAKE that law, now. (Also, if there's a federal law against murder, the lack of state law doesn't mean jack shit.)

[Desmosthenes and Burke]

(Also, if there's a federal law against murder, the lack of state law doesn't mean jack shit.)

Off topic, but untrue. Primo because as far as I know, the Federal government of the US cannot pass a general murder statute, because it lacks a general police power. Secundo, even if it could, it is more or less well established that the US states are under no obligation to use THEIR police and courts to enforce federal policy, and the states lack the authority to prosecute Federal crimes (see, e.g., the American immigration debate).

On the topic of the resolution, I do not find any particular bit of it offensive or problematic. For any normal nation, it does not DO anything, so I would likely abstain at vote, should this ever make it that far.

[Liberimery]

(Also, if there's a federal law against murder, the lack of state law doesn't mean jack shit.)

Off topic, but untrue. Primo because as far as I know, the Federal government of the US cannot pass a general murder statute, because it lacks a general police power. Secundo, even if it could, it is more or less well established that the US states are under no obligation to use THEIR police and courts to enforce federal policy, and the states lack the authority to prosecute Federal crimes (see, e.g., the American immigration debate).

On the topic of the resolution, I do not find any particular bit of it offensive or problematic. For any normal nation, it does not DO anything, so I would likely abstain at vote, should this ever make it that far.

Murder is a federal crime though rarely prosecuted by Feds. What I was referring to was the US’ use of Common Law legal mechanisms, which allow for case law that isn’t found in mainland Europe. So while my State doesn’t have a codified law defining murder on the books, the fact that my states legal existence predating the nation means it’s case laws were derived from English law, where murder was a crime, and thus a formal law never was enacted when the state ceased being English. Courts can make laws in the US or any other common law system, but in a more limited sense than legislative branches.

[Imperium Anglorum]

After so many weeks, unlawful behaviour is still a crime. What a surprise.

[Potted Plants United]

the Federal government of the US cannot pass a general murder statute

Murder is a federal crime

OOC: So which is it? Not a federal crime or a federal crime? (Also, pretend this is an Araraukar post.)

For any normal nation, it does not DO anything

...so RL USA is not a normal nation. Okay then.

More seriously, was wondering if that was the case and if this thus should be Mild, but with the RL examples just given, it sounds like the "there must be a law for killing to be legal" bit is perhaps not as obvious as I thought.

[Morover]

OOC: I'm still not buying that clause two is effective. I support the proposal in premise, but if it criminalizes the "unlawful killing of a person" (which, personal preference, but I'd personally change to sapient), then it does nothing. If I were you, I'd word it as "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'murder' as the intentional killing of a civilian by another civilian". Not only would this eliminate the necessity of clause seven, but it effectively solves the biggest issue with this proposal. It's the only viable solution that I see to it.

[Terttia]

If I were you, I'd word it as "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'murder' as the intentional killing of a civilian by another civilian".

Non-civilians can murder too.

[Morover]

If I were you, I'd word it as "Defines, for the purposes of this resolution, 'murder' as the intentional killing of a civilian by another civilian".

Non-civilians can murder too.

OOC: You're absolutely right, and for some reason I defined civilian in my mind as including off-duty non-civilians, which isn't true. Regardless, it was an example of a preferable phrasing, in my opinion.

[Liberimery]

Murder is a federal crime

OOC: So which is it? Not a federal crime or a federal crime? (Also, pretend this is an Araraukar post.)

For any normal nation, it does not DO anything

...so RL USA is not a normal nation. Okay then.

More seriously, was wondering if that was the case and if this thus should be Mild, but with the RL examples just given, it sounds like the "there must be a law for killing to be legal" bit is perhaps not as obvious as I thought.

The U.S. has dual sovereignty which means that the Federal Government and the State Government can both try you for the same crime. Typically in these situations, the Feds won’t prosecute and defer to the state’s decision in a charge. There is a Federal Murder law (not sure if it’s codified or case law but it’s there) but it’s rarely charged because States go first. Typically US citizens can be charged for many crimes in two separate jurisdictions at any time and as many as 7 jurisdictions (you have to do it in a very specific point).