[DEFEATED] Repeal GA#443 "P. Innocents"

[Tinhampton]

This resolution was at vote between the 3rd and 7th of February, 2020.
It was defeated by a margin of 12,719 votes (about 82%) to 2,808 (about 18%).

---

This proposal has been submitted to the General Assembly Repeals Board.
NOTE: at 1421 GMT on the 3rd of February 2020, this proposal reached quorum with Pig land's approval, the 70th all told.

TINHAMPTONIAN MINISTRY OF WORLD ASSEMBLY AFFAIRS: Notice of Submission Warning
This proposal is likely to be submitted on Brexit Day (31st January 2020); notwithstanding lack of complaints, nor the creation or revival of any suitable replacement for or shortcircuiting of the target resolution. Thank you for your consideration.

---

Character count: 3,119
Word count: 502

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of WA D-A: Many have pointed out the flaws in ...Innocents and we applaud them, but nobody has successfully convinced the rest of the world of their evidency... sadly. This is not perfect, and it was not even intended for publication on our end until recently, but it will have to do for the next three weeks; perhaps forever if the stars align well enough.
Victoria Jenkins, fourth-in-line to the post of WA D-A: Well, there was an attempt and it almost passed, but it had a mistake - honest!

Repeal "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents"
A resolution to repeal previously passed legislation.

Category: Repeal

Target: GA#443

Proposed by: Tinhampton

---

General Assembly Resolution #443 “Preventing the Execution of Innocents” (Category: Civil Rights; Strength: Mild) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Recognising that, although Article 1 of GA#443 seemingly permits WA members to impose capital punishment upon criminals on their territory, such imposition is said to be "[s]ubject to World Assembly legislation;"

Noting that this definition not only includes prior and unrepealed law as well as future regulation of capital punishment, but also incorporates the target resolution, which imposes a morass of bureaucracy - under the false banner of "compromise" - in order to neuter the possibility that the death penalty may be allowed, if not always then in many circumstances;

Aware that while Article 8 only sanctions executions if the suspect's case record has been certified in the past year (i.e. twelve months), Article 5a demands that the prosecuting member must "serially provide" the WACC's Judicial Committee's Capital Cases Division - or the Division - and all lawyers involved with their case six months each, summing to twelve months, to find any evidence that could lead to their exoneration; hence, either such evidence will be found and the execution must be deferred, or it has not and the execution must be planned hastily if at all;

Concerned at the mandate in Article 6 that, upon review, an execution can only be carried out with tools that definitely do not "cause pain or suffering," when in fact no apparatus on its own can painlessly end a sapient being's life, and some members desirous of capital punishment may not have any combinations of such apparatus that do meet the Article 6 requirements;

Fearful that, while Article 3 prohibits the prosecuting member from forcing the defending party into a position where their defence could be detrimentally affected, including genuine requests for evidence, Article 4f imposes double standards upon that member in forcing it to prove that "foreseeable" evidence which may "cast doubt" on the suspect's guilt cannot exist (although what level of proof is required is never defined); analogously, forcing the prosecuting party into a position where their prosecution could be detrimentally affected;

Disappointed that, even if GA#443 does indeed allow capital punishment on some occasions, Article 2's requirement for each country to only submit one case to the Division per million people per annum seemingly prohibits nations with six-figure populations and below from carrying it out at all, while requiring larger nations with multiple potential targets for submission - some of whom have committed the same crime - to occasionally make arbitrary choices;

Agreed that the death penalty is neither fair nor a deterrent and should be prohibited by the World Assembly; but also that the target resolution achieves only such a prohibition (in large part if not totally) by placing many more regulations on WA members than would normally be expected of a blanket ban on anything, and should thus be struck down; and

Reaffirming its belief, as stated in GA#438, that a sensible and forthright ban on the death penalty ought to replace the target resolution...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#443 "Preventing the Execution of Innocents."

On 15th January 2020, this draft was amended to substitute in the word "totally" in place of "entirely," in addition to "GA#443" in place of "this resolution."

[Araraukar]

"Support. The use of death penalty should remain the decision of the judge residing on the case, not that of the WA. Death penalty is not inherently any more evil than lifetime imprisonment."

[Astrobolt]

Agreed that the death penalty is neither fair nor a deterrent and should be prohibited by the World Assembly; but also that the target resolution achieves only such a prohibition (in large part if not entirely) by placing many more regulations on WA members than would normally be expected of a blanket ban on anything, and should thus be struck down; and

Reaffirming its belief, as stated in GA#438, that a sensible and forthright ban on the death penalty ought to replace the target resolution...

The General Assembly hereby repeals GA#443 "Preventing The Execution Of Innocents."

"GA#443 only permits the death penalty "subject to World Assembly legislation." There is nothing stopping your delegation from making a resolution attempting to ban capital punishment, as a repeal of GA#443 is not required to ban the death penalty."

[Tinhampton]

[snip the final three clauses of this draft]

"GA#443 only permits the death penalty "subject to World Assembly legislation." There is nothing stopping your delegation from making a resolution attempting to ban capital punishment, as a repeal of GA#443 is not required to ban the death penalty."

Lydia Anderson, third-in-line to the post of WA D-A: As we have made aware above, this draft will be abandoned within the next three weeks or so if a suitable replacement for "or shortcircuiting of" the target resolution resurfaces. The suggestion is appreciated, but we are satisfied that a serious revival of the Bay Staters' proposed "Ban On Judicial Murder" - although it has been dormant for some months - would be sufficient to warrant the detabling of this draft for the foreseeable future, and we will not attempt to hijack the principle of that gambit from...
Alexander Smith, Tinhamptonian Delegate-Ambassador to the World Assembly: What my good friend says is not fully correct, at least on this occasion. A draft has been... will be prepared for Weekday One or thereabouts.

[Tinhampton]

TL;DR: I have restarted work on this draft in preparation for its submission on January 31st, assuming no last-ditch major complaints or revivals of old Repeal GA#443 drafts. Two small changes: In the DISAPPOINTED clause, the reference to "this resolution" has been replaced by a reference to "GA#443"; in the AGREED clause, the word "totally" has been substituted for "entirely."

---

A statement from the Honourable Saffron Naomi Howard AM, Mayor of the Self-Administrative City of Tinhampton:

Ideas are sacrosanct; in the macrocosm of legislative policy, they are also slow-moving traffic. Running bulldozers against them, heaven forbid running off with some beforehand, would cause significant delay throughout the core road network. Simply because a trailer reading YOUR FUTURE WITHOUT UNWANTED SUFFERING - COMING SOON has been affixed to a van parked on a hill overlooking the road, and that the van has been parked there for the past six months, does not enable my friend Mr Smith to suggest that the trailer be detached and attached to his van; nor that the parked van be taken and driven back on the road.
I have sent an advisory opinion to Delegate-Ambassador Alexander Smith against his proposal divulged during the pre-submission debate stage at the WA Headquarters. As his former Deputy Mayor Lydia Anderson noted beforehand, that proposal had already been suggested some time ago by a delegation with substantially more experience in the plane of international law than we could ever hope to attain, and it is not unrealistic to expect that it may be actively discussed at some point in the future. I furthermore agree with Mrs Anderson that the proposal is best suited as a standalone resolution, until and unless a third-party draft that predates or is superior to this one is returned for pre-submission debate.
I have ordered Tinhampton's World Assembly delegation, on behalf of our Minister of World Assembly Affairs, to continue to actively draft this proposal until they either submit it or completely abandon it.

Under the Government Act 1930, this is an official statement by the Hon. Saffron Howard AM, Mayor of Tinhampton. Attempted impersonation can result in up to a two-year prison sentence.

[WayNeacTia]

"Support. The use of death penalty should remain the decision of the judge residing on the case, not that of the WA. Death penalty is not inherently any more evil than lifetime imprisonment."

Not necessarily. A life sentence, while it takes away a lot of time from an innocent, is at least somewhat reversible. Death on the other hand is fairly permanent.

[Araraukar]

"Support. The use of death penalty should remain the decision of the judge residing on the case, not that of the WA. Death penalty is not inherently any more evil than lifetime imprisonment."

Not necessarily. A life sentence, while it takes away a lot of time from an innocent, is at least somewhat reversible. Death on the other hand is fairly permanent.

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it. No sensible nation would either imprison or execute innocents. But when the guilt of a serious crime has been proven beyond any doubt, life in prison is slow torture to them and a drain on the society. It is then better for both that the alternative exists."

[WayNeacTia]

Not necessarily. A life sentence, while it takes away a lot of time from an innocent, is at least somewhat reversible. Death on the other hand is fairly permanent.

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it. No sensible nation would either imprison or execute innocents. But when the guilt of a serious crime has been proven beyond any doubt, life in prison is slow torture to them and a drain on the society. It is then better for both that the alternative exists."

"Innocents are imprisoned in sensible nations all the time Ambassador. People convicted on the eye witness testimony of a single witness, only for that witness to recant after 20 years? Don't be so obtuse."

Wayne

[Morover]

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it. No sensible nation would either imprison or execute innocents. But when the guilt of a serious crime has been proven beyond any doubt, life in prison is slow torture to them and a drain on the society. It is then better for both that the alternative exists."

"Innocents are imprisoned in sensible nations all the time Ambassador. People convicted on the eye witness testimony of a single witness, only for that witness to recant after 20 years? Don't be so obtuse."

Wayne

"This just further goes to prove the infeasibilities of classical incarceration - if you don't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, then you don't have enough evidence to lock someone up in a prison."

"Support, assuming that the replacement proposal you have brought to the table - this 'Ban On Judicial Murder' - is actually revived and is ready to go at the time of submission. Otherwise, I don't think I can vote for this. There must be minimal time between the passage of the repeal and the passage of the replacement."

[WayNeacTia]

"Innocents are imprisoned in sensible nations all the time Ambassador. People convicted on the eye witness testimony of a single witness, only for that witness to recant after 20 years? Don't be so obtuse."

Wayne

"This just further goes to prove the infeasibilities of classical incarceration - if you don't have enough evidence to prove guilt beyond the shadow of a doubt, then you don't have enough evidence to lock someone up in a prison."

"Juries are made up of ordinary people Ambassador. And ordinary people have the tendency to make mistakes."

Wayne

[Kowani]

Not necessarily. A life sentence, while it takes away a lot of time from an innocent, is at least somewhat reversible. Death on the other hand is fairly permanent.

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it. No sensible nation would either imprison or execute innocents. But when the guilt of a serious crime has been proven beyond any doubt, life in prison is slow torture to them and a drain on the society. It is then better for both that the alternative exists."

“I was not aware that your nation had an infallible justice system, Ambassador.”

[Araraukar]

OOC: Will get this changed into IC reply when at the computer, but in Araraukar you can get neither life in prison (which means no release ever) nor death penalty, if there's any doubt of you being guilty. Lesser sentences go for any "beyond reasonable doubt" ones. Also, Araraukar doesn't use juries, so trials are not popularity contests. That and progressive social policies meant to prevent people getting in trouble with the law in the first place (plus extensive surveillance of public spaces) mean that serious crime in general is rare, but when it happens, there usually is plenty of evidence.

Also, even a straight up ban would not actually ban death sentences in practice, and if someone looks up Wrapper's Bar posts with search words to do with that and suicide, you'll find out why...

[Imperium Anglorum]

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it.

This is just godmodding.

[Araraukar]

"If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it.

This is just godmodding.

OOC: Given I was talking about life in prison (or execution as the other option), it looks like you missed this:

in Araraukar you can get neither life in prison (which means no release ever) nor death penalty, if there's any doubt of you being guilty. Lesser sentences go for any "beyond reasonable doubt" ones.

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

[WayNeacTia]

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

Yet it happens all the time.

[Araraukar]

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

Yet it happens all the time.

OOC: ...and?

EDIT: Also, depends on what nation we're talking about. Prison sentences are hard to get in RL Finland even when you've been found guilty beyond all doubt. Something something making criminals worse.

[WayNeacTia]

Yet it happens all the time.

OOC: ...and?

EDIT: Also, depends on what nation we're talking about. Prison sentences are hard to get in RL Finland even when you've been found guilty beyond all doubt. Something something making criminals worse.

Canada is no different. Time served is pretty much the standard for assault with a weapon in Canada now, so it equates to three months.

[Imperium Anglorum]

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

Cool non-responsive. Any solvency from your plan? If you wish to wallow in this absurdity that somehow 'my nation never gets it wrong'. Cool, if I move there can I get a free flying pink pony too?

[Araraukar]

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

Cool non-responsive. Any solvency from your plan? If you wish to wallow in this absurdity that somehow 'my nation never gets it wrong'. Cool, if I move there can I get a free flying pink pony too?

OOC: ...exactly where have I said "my nation never gets it wrong"? Also, you're thinking of EP with that last reference.

[Giants Hill]

Cool non-responsive. Any solvency from your plan? If you wish to wallow in this absurdity that somehow 'my nation never gets it wrong'. Cool, if I move there can I get a free flying pink pony too?

OOC: ...exactly where have I said "my nation never gets it wrong"? Also, you're thinking of EP with that last reference.

You don't say it explicitly, but you heavily imply that your justice system prevents any innocent person from ever being wrongfully locked up when you say stuff like:

If your nation imprisons innocents, there is something seriously wrong with it. No sensible nation would either imprison or execute innocents.

But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?

They didn't say that imprisoning innocents is acceptable. They didn't even imply it. They stated that if someone is wrongfully locked up with a life sentence and is later proven innocent, they can be released. You can't do that if the person is dead.

[Araraukar]

You don't say it explicitly, but you heavily imply that your justice system

OOC: When I post "talking like this" and either mark it as "IC" or at least don't mark it with "OOC", that means it's the character doing it, not me the player. The character may have 100% trust in their national justice system. That doesn't mean I was trying to claim it was perfect.

Do you understand the difference?

Also, Araraukar doesn't reflect my personal ideologies/opinions 100%, and characters' opinions are even further from mine. That's because the characters have far different background and live in a far different society than I do and have. They do not reflect me any more than Araraukar reflects my RL home nation.

prevents any innocent person from ever being wrongfully locked up

For the third time, only life (or death) sentences are for cases where there is no doubt whatsoever. Any that have even the slightest doubt (the RL phrase "beyond reasonable doubt"), aren't eligible for either life-long imprisonment or death sentence.

Given that this seems to be a reading comprehension fail for so many people, I don't understand what you're reading into it? Do you all think Araraukar has prisons full of people or executes tons of people all the time or what? It has much higher standards on using even life imprisonment (not to mention death penalty) than most RL nations!

They didn't say

Given that they (or at least IA) claim that I say things I don't say, I don't see how I'm at fault there.

Now, if you want to address what my character said, please do so in IC with your own character. My character can't see the OOC talk that us players write.

EDIT: And I wouldn't be surprised if a mod spliced off our posts, given that they're not any way related to the draft.

[Giants Hill]

OOC: When I post "talking like this" and either mark it as "IC" or at least don't mark it with "OOC", that means it's the character doing it, not me the player. The character may have 100% trust in their national justice system. That doesn't mean I was trying to claim it was perfect.

Do you understand the difference?

Yes, I am aware the difference between IC and OOC, you don't have to explain it to me.

Given that this seems to be a reading comprehension fail for so many people, I don't understand what you're reading into it? Do you all think Araraukar has prisons full of people or executes tons of people all the time or what?

No, I don't think that, I don't even know where you got that idea from.

I brought up the "But I still fail to see how you think that imprisoning innocent people would in any way be acceptable?" comment because it made it sound like (to me) that, regardless of the nation's justice system in regards to life/death sentences, the nation never locks up innocent people. It made it seem like you were doubling down on what the character said, except now OOC. I over generalized, and I apologize for that.

Given that they (or at least IA) claim that I say things I don't say, I don't see how I'm at fault there.

The comment I was referencing (and what I should have quoted, again my mistake) was the one that started this whole argument.

Not necessarily. A life sentence, while it takes away a lot of time from an innocent, is at least somewhat reversible. Death on the other hand is fairly permanent.

I realize the "But I still fail to see..." line was during a response to IA, but I don't think they or anyone else here is saying imprisoning innocents is acceptable.

This will probably be my last post here since we've derailed the discussion on this draft enough, I just wanted to explain some things and apologize.

[Tinhampton]

Firstly, we have a replacement if this succeeds.

Secondly, ten days until this is submitted. Is this draft really so good that almost none of you seem willing to make any comments about it?

[Astrobolt]

Firstly, we have a replacement if this succeeds.

Secondly, ten days until this is submitted. Is this draft really so good that almost none of you seem willing to make any comments about it?

"Ambassador, you can still submit your replacement draft without repealing this resolution. Clause 1 of GA#443 states that "Subject to World Assembly legislation, member nations are permitted to sentence and carry out capital punishment within their jurisdictions." This means that GA#443 does not need to be repealed in order to abolish capital punishment.

[Tinhampton]

This draft is still a thing and I'm still intent on submitting it at about 5pm GMT on Friday - complaints and quibbles notwithstanding, of course.